Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
There is no "the Democratic Party" which makes such a decision. There is a contest for the nomination, which is decided by a huge number of individual voters, and it's exceedingly difficult to oust a sitting president.
I was using "the Democratic Party" as shorthand for the gestalt entity. And I think that's fine when drawing parallels between what is happening now, what happened in 2016, and what would be likely to happen if Biden wasn't the 2024 nominee (because of death, incapacitation, or decision to retire).
It's fine to use it so - but quite wrong, I'd argue, to suggest that there's some sort of hive mind entity that could have "thought the unthinkable" and ditched an unwilling Biden.
It takes something quite exceptional (LBJ and the mass protests against Vietnam, for example) to create such a consensus and unseat a sitting president (and even then, it was LBJ deciding not to run). Just being unpopular isn't enough - and Biden is unusual in that he's governed pretty successfully, while remaining unpopular.
...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...
If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.
Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Farage is a creation of the media - of course they will plaster him all over the TV. You also have the fact he is probably permanently sat in a car in central London waiting for an assistant to call him to tell him someone on some show has dropped out, would he be willing to go straight there, whereas other people in smaller parties actually have work to do.
It's also a case that Farage, whilst maybe not being in the direct interest of people who care about the BBC as a public service, is in the interest of media and capital overall - nothing he wants to do is a threat to control of the capitalist class. Indeed, the harsh demonising of immigrants and asylum seekers is what allows a fair number of people to have access to cheap labour who are too scared of looking for support. He won't be able to stop immigrants coming here any more than any other party - but he will make it easier to exploit them. And he will also sell off a lot of government assets whilst he's at it.
He also allows bigoted rich people to feel secure in their idea of self when suggesting that this is really "the will of the people" and that bigotry is somehow an act of being closer to earth when, in fact, much of the evidence suggests that bigotries are often imposed top down, with people in power choosing a group to other, running a campaign of othering, and then pointing to the masses when there is an uptick of that bigotry in the wider population.
So he gets more air time than, say, the Greens, because he is "good" television, he will come in on short notice, and he isn't an ideological threat to what the "sensibles" want to believe.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.
In real elections not so. The Lib Dems won more council seats than the Tories in May. Reform scarcely won any at all. If we went only on polling then Farage would expect 4x as much coverage as the SNP and 10x that of Plaid or any NI party.
I am not going to enter that debate. However Blairs intervention timing and the nature of his intervention demonstrate his political skills are streets ahead of anyone prominent in the three main parties.
The only one who gets near is Farage, but in his case the effect is muted by being a one man band.
Russia will be forced to surrender if the Kremlin does not agree to the terms of peace, according to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during the broadcast of the second plenary session of the peace summit.
"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you
I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.
(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)
Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.
I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote
True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.
Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.
(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)
Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
The whole "I had a conversation with my wife" thing is entirely him hiding behind her skirts to justify his reversion to the rut. It's his way of taking offence at any criticism by pretending that they're somehow attacking his wife. He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.
Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!
Time to leave Big_G alone, I think.
I was happy to gently take the piss when he announced his 'shock' decision, but it's really unfair to continue attacking a single PBer for what isn't a particularly outlandish decision. He understandably touchy if everyone continues piling on.
I got thinking about it because of his super-sensitive touchiness about things that were utterly unrelated to his vote volte-face. It was very weird so I got thinking about what must be going on in his head. Wallowing in victimhood when other people were very gently debating things like drones is a kind of control drama. It's a way of silencing other people by making any kind of disagreement haram.
G can vote however he likes. Like others, I never believed him about switching and found his inevitable u-turn simply amusing. But since then he's been excessively whiny about, frankly, nothing at all. Example: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4838775#Comment_4838775 and of course the nonsense about showering that successfully got him out of an awkward spot when he was talking out of his hat about drones.
That kind of grievance-mongering doesn't help debate, and indulging it just makes it worse. If HYUFD's comment really was "amazingly disrespectful" to him and his wife then what hope is there for any political conversations at all?
Point of order
Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath, it is a fact
The drone issue in Wales is widely reported here and has not be denied by the Welsh government who are committed to increasing council tax bands, a policy I favour
It's not widely reported. I can't find any reporting of it.
I think this is Sunderland Conservatives up to dirty tricks on Facebook again.
Russia will be forced to surrender if the Kremlin does not agree to the terms of peace, according to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during the broadcast of the second plenary session of the peace summit.
"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
Ah so it's William Glenn the hard right fanboy today. Can we have the other William Glenn back?
WATO have spent their entire election coverage on Farage. Culminating in Minford Paradigm commentator Matthew Goodwin claiming just a handful of seats this election but the collection of 75 RedWall seats next election. He is confirming the death of the Conservative Party followed by the demise of Labour.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
Well I'm only here arguing that a long shot should be about 50 not 200.
But, yes, fair cop on the general point. Not so much about Biden but about Trump. I thought the GOP would be more resistant to going with him again.
My instincts? Still the same on the big question. No Trump2.
In a new motion filed at the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, 777’s Josh Wander & Steven Pasko are accused of “operating a massive, Madoff-scale scheme of fraud to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars” & that “it has become clear that the scheme is falling apart.”
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Farage is a creation of the media - of course they will plaster him all over the TV. You also have the fact he is probably permanently sat in a car in central London waiting for an assistant to call him to tell him someone on some show has dropped out, would he be willing to go straight there, whereas other people in smaller parties actually have work to do.
It's also a case that Farage, whilst maybe not being in the direct interest of people who care about the BBC as a public service, is in the interest of media and capital overall - nothing he wants to do is a threat to control of the capitalist class. Indeed, the harsh demonising of immigrants and asylum seekers is what allows a fair number of people to have access to cheap labour who are too scared of looking for support. He won't be able to stop immigrants coming here any more than any other party - but he will make it easier to exploit them. And he will also sell off a lot of government assets whilst he's at it.
He also allows bigoted rich people to feel secure in their idea of self when suggesting that this is really "the will of the people" and that bigotry is somehow an act of being closer to earth when, in fact, much of the evidence suggests that bigotries are often imposed top down, with people in power choosing a group to other, running a campaign of othering, and then pointing to the masses when there is an uptick of that bigotry in the wider population.
So he gets more air time than, say, the Greens, because he is "good" television, he will come in on short notice, and he isn't an ideological threat to what the "sensibles" want to believe.
He’s also polling at about triple the Greens’ support. I’d be happy to see better representation for the Greens and LibDems, but I think there are problems to a claimed Green/Reform UK equivalence.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
I am planning to watch the results on ITV, but if Reform do badly, I will turn over to the BBC to watch the presenters’ faces. I would expect Kuenssberg to look like a melted wellie.
Eh? I find the idea that the BBC are backing Reform astonishing.
Watching the BBC announce the results of the Brexit referendum was like watching them announce the death of the Queen. Even the coverage of the results of the 2019 GE had the sombre air of a death. The BBC's worldview ranges from hard left to centrist. Arguably there might be one or two who quietly favour Cameronite conservatism, but you get no further right than that.
Russia will be forced to surrender if the Kremlin does not agree to the terms of peace, according to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during the broadcast of the second plenary session of the peace summit.
"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
That was a mistranslation. She didn't say "Russia will be forced to surrender". Unfortunately.
In a new motion filed at the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, 777’s Josh Wander & Steven Pasko are accused of “operating a massive, Madoff-scale scheme of fraud to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars” & that “it has become clear that the scheme is falling apart.”
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.
In real elections not so. The Lib Dems won more council seats than the Tories in May. Reform scarcely won any at all. If we went only on polling then Farage would expect 4x as much coverage as the SNP and 10x that of Plaid or any NI party.
Sure, there is a debate about whether it’s polling or seats won/likely to be won that should matter more. The LibDems seem highly likely to get many more seats, although Reform UK, the spreads suggest, are on course to get more seats than the Greens. Personally, I think if a lot of your viewers(/listeners/readers) are intending to vote Reform UK, it’s appropriate to have a lot of coverage of Reform UK.
There’s also a complication around parties that are popular in just one of the four nations, which is partly handled by regional coverage being different.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
I am planning to watch the results on ITV, but if Reform do badly, I will turn over to the BBC to watch the presenters’ faces. I would expect Kuenssberg to look like a melted wellie.
Eh? I find the idea that the BBC are backing Reform astonishing.
Watching the BBC announce the results of the Brexit referendum was like watching them announce the death of the Queen. Even the coverage of the results of the 2019 GE had the sombre air of a death. The BBC's worldview ranges from hard left to centrist. Arguably there might be one or two who quietly favour Cameronite conservatism, but you get no further right than that.
Where might I find this uber left wing BBC? The one I am listening to now (R4 WATO) is busy fellating Nigel Farage.
@Quincel, good article as per. I do like a title in the "The War at XXXX: DESCRIPTION (Part NNN)" format. Makes me think this is the first part in a series...
It seems like most people in the thread are in agreement that trans people should be treated with dignity and respect, using their chosen pronouns and so on. Applying a bit of common sense. There are very few posters on here who think otherwise.
My point about waiting lists below is a generalised one about the collapse of the NHS, and gender politics is of marginal interest in GE2024 in certain constituencies, e.g. Rosie Duffield's. There is some wishy washy wibble in the Con manifesto about biological sex and gender, but no more than we'd already expected from a party that wholeheartedly believes in the conclusions of the Cass Review, and wants to bring a new Section 28 style legislation into schools. That was already a known quantity and isn't new to the GE2024 debate.
I think it's a good thing that the Conservatives have so far mostly stayed out of the trans issue during the election campaign as part of their ongoing 'war against woke'. Indeed, the only reference to it I'm aware of is them tweeting 'Only the Conservatives know what a real woman is' which I'm only familiar with because it was widely quote-tweeted with 'Yeah, but I bet none of them can find the "little man in the boat"...'
So far GE2024 hasn't been the 'war on woke' we were all expecting. And that, at least, is to Sunak and the Conservative Party's credit.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.
In real elections not so. The Lib Dems won more council seats than the Tories in May. Reform scarcely won any at all. If we went only on polling then Farage would expect 4x as much coverage as the SNP and 10x that of Plaid or any NI party.
Sure, there is a debate about whether it’s polling or seats won/likely to be won that should matter more. The LibDems seem highly likely to get many more seats, although Reform UK, the spreads suggest, are on course to get more seats than the Greens. Personally, I think if a lot of your viewers(/listeners/readers) are intending to vote Reform UK, it’s appropriate to have a lot of coverage of Reform UK.
There’s also a complication around parties that are popular in just one of the four nations, which is partly handled by regional coverage being different.
Even if you base it on vote share rather than seats, again in all actual elections including council byelections during this campaign Reform's vote share is way way below its polling numbers.
Base coverage on polling and you're putting a lot of power in the hands of pollsters.
Will the useless media actually ask Farage some tough questions.
Leaving the ECHR breaches the GFA , risks losing security co-operation with the EU .
It's certainly Farage's day on the media today with Sky following him to South Wales fot his so called manifesto launch and he is promising the same nonsense seen in the Green one
Farage is a threat not only to the conservative party but labour and others and he has to be challenged and defeated
It is why I hope 2019 conservative voters will think long and hard before voting and conclude as my wife and I have done to vote conservative to ensure the party receive more votes than Reform and Farage
@Quincel, good article as per. I do like a title in the "The War at XXXX: DESCRIPTION (Part NNN)" format. Makes me think this is the first part in a series...
(plus, it's a great opportunity to insert "The Wrath Of" or "The Revenge Of" into the titles. Just sayin'... )
Reform will scrap net zero and green energy subsidies
Reform won't 'do' any such thing, as they won't be anywhere near government.
They are promising unlimited spending to the remaining Tory voting demographic (pensioners), and need some marginally plausible (ie imaginary) means of 'funding' theose promises,
Starmer and Reeves are asked by a port worker about zero-hour contracts, who says their flexibility works for him. The Labour leader says his party's plan is to get rid of exploitative zero-hour contracts, adding that people would be allowed to carry on with that style of contract if it works for them.
What is an exploitative one? That seems very tricky to define. And that member of the public isn't an isolated case, polling has shown this. The ones that stopped you getting a different job at the same time were outlawed.
I wouldn't even mess about going down that road. Rather if you work for the same employer for say 6 or 12 months on a zero-hour contract you should be offered a guaranteed min hours contract, because clearly the company need your labour for a regular amount of hours.
I can not stand Farage or his dogwhistle policies. But I listened to his 'manifesto' launch and I see why people support him. He is clear and to the point with simple messages..
Will the useless media actually ask Farage some tough questions.
Leaving the ECHR breaches the GFA , risks losing security co-operation with the EU .
It's certainly Farage's day on the media today with Sky following him to South Wales fot his so called manifesto launch and he is promising the same nonsense seen in the Green one
Farage is a threat not only to the conservative party but labour and others and he has to be challenged and defeated
It is why I hope 2019 conservative voters will think long and hard before voting and conclude as my wife and I have done to vote conservative to ensure the party receive more votes than Reform and Farage
Starmer is going to be PM on the 5th July anyway
Not if you and all the other 2019 Tory voters vote Conservative he's not.
In a new motion filed at the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, 777’s Josh Wander & Steven Pasko are accused of “operating a massive, Madoff-scale scheme of fraud to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars” & that “it has become clear that the scheme is falling apart.”
Starmer and Reeves are asked by a port worker about zero-hour contracts, who says their flexibility works for him. The Labour leader says his party's plan is to get rid of exploitative zero-hour contracts, adding that people would be allowed to carry on with that style of contract if it works for them.
What is an exploitative one? That seems very tricky to define. And that member of the public isn't an isolated case, polling has shown this. The ones that stopped you getting a different job at the same time were outlawed.
I wouldn't even mess about going down that road. Rather if you work for the same employer for say 6 or 12 months on a zero-hour contract you should be offered a guaranteed min hours contract, because clearly the company need your labour for a regular amount of hours.
In 2015 Labour pledged to ban "exploitative" zero hour contracts too.
Are they still as much of an issue as they were then? They seem to have faded in the debate.
Fascinating to see people now supporting net zero after the government that did the most to set it back, i.e. the Tories, did it purely for electoral reasons. And yet some are now supporting them (or so says Twitter etc).
My Dad has voted Tory all his life and is sitting this election out in East Hants (for @Casino_Royale). I think that deeply respectable.
It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc". Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.
I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.
Only sometimes.
Do you ever think maybe it's just that you can't like somebody's posts all the time?
Sometimes you write utter tripe, sometimes Richard does. TSE does most of the time etc.
You take things a bit too seriously old bean.
The best of tripe I can recall is by IncorrectHorseBattery when he became convinced that Silicon Valley Bank UK was going to get a taxpayer bailout and became abusive to those of us who worked in Financial Services who said there would be no bailout thanks to ring fencing.
It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc". Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.
I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.
Only sometimes.
Do you ever think maybe it's just that you can't like somebody's posts all the time?
Sometimes you write utter tripe, sometimes Richard does. TSE does most of the time etc.
You take things a bit too seriously old bean.
The best of tripe I can recall is by IncorrectHorseBattery when he became convinced that Silicon Valley Bank UK was going to get a taxpayer bailout and became abusive to those of us who worked in Financial Services who said there would be no bailout thanks to ring fencing.
Well there we are, everyone writes tripe. But you as the expert can be the best judge! Personally I enjoy a bit of tripe, keeps the place interesting!
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
Starmer and Reeves are asked by a port worker about zero-hour contracts, who says their flexibility works for him. The Labour leader says his party's plan is to get rid of exploitative zero-hour contracts, adding that people would be allowed to carry on with that style of contract if it works for them.
What is an exploitative one? That seems very tricky to define. And that member of the public isn't an isolated case, polling has shown this. The ones that stopped you getting a different job at the same time were outlawed.
I wouldn't even mess about going down that road. Rather if you work for the same employer for say 6 or 12 months on a zero-hour contract you should be offered a guaranteed min hours contract, because clearly the company need your labour for a regular amount of hours.
In 2015 Labour pledged to ban "exploitative" zero hour contracts too.
Are they still as much of an issue as they were then? They seem to have faded in the debate.
I don't think it was ever as big an issue as was made out. The majority of people on zero-hours contracts pay high tax rate, and polling shows a significant proportion of those on them are happy. Zero-hours contracts back in the day was just called agency work.
Where businesses had overstepped was these extra conditions on not being able to choose other employers, which again back in the day was never part of being agency worker, and the government rightly banned that.
As I say, I think if you want to do anything you put in rule about offering more stable hours after a period...outside of the most exploitative employers, I think that happens already, as good employers want good reliable employees. They have always used agency / zero-hours to basically fill in temporary busy period and / or trial people for the job.
I think that we'll start to get polls that put Reform within striking distance of Labour before the campaign is out. That will really create some panic.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
Remind me how did the Truss-Kwarteng budget go down with the financial markets? The moment these clowns look like they are close to Government their whole shopping list unravels.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
As I noted in the last thread it's not like replacing a party leader in the UK; a party unseating its own sitting president isn't a few party leaders deciding his time's up - it would need a broad movement across all Democrats (and there's no sign of such consensus). And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.
The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.
It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.
The other thing about this is: Say he decided not to run at this point. What's the story? He's incapable of running for president, but for the next 8 months he remains capable of *being* president? It doesn't make sense. What if something happens and they someone to do some presidenting?
If were to decide he couldn't make it to the election, the move would be to stand down *as president*. Then you've got a new president, Kamala Harris, and she is obviously the candidate.
Harris would lose the battleground states to Trump and lead the Democrats to their worst defeat since Dukakis in 1988
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?
I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.
I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.
We need far more meat on the bones from Labour about planning reform. What will this mean in practice?
As somebody who has worked extensively in the telecoms industry, I can chime in on what I would change there:
Allow the building of masts in urban areas under permitted development rights
Increase the maximum height of masts in urban areas to an unlimited reasonable height above buildings
Allow extending the height of existing masts without any extra permission up to a higher height (+-30 metres)
Allow building of masts in rural areas up to a maximum of 50-60 metres and allow extension of existing masts up to this height without permission
Allow the building of small cells under permitted development rights in all areas
Allow building of masts/sites next to roads under permitted development rights
This would increase coverage significantly but would actually reduce the number of masts needed as a taller height increases the coverage radius a large amount.
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.
What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %. Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red
...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...
If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.
Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower
...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...
If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.
Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower
...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...
If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.
Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower
With my current sciatica I too can get in and out of the bath but find it difficult to stand and turn under a shower.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
I am liking the 'brighten the horses' typo - you'd be against them draping horses in LGBTQ+ colours then?
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.
What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %. Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red
There was a real tetchiness in Mandelson's remarks about Reform over the weekend, as if he thought it was the Tories' job to soak up their votes (and therefore keep safe Labour seats safe).
The more the Tories collapse, the harder it becomes for Labour in areas that they are used to taking for granted.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
I am liking the 'brighten the horses' typo - you'd be against them draping horses in LGBTQ+ colours then?
You would need the correct horse battery to brighten the horses.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?
I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.
I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.
You're having a Laffer, of course they don't.
The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
I am liking the 'brighten the horses' typo - you'd be against them draping horses in LGBTQ+ colours then?
You would need the correct horse battery to brighten the horses.
We need far more meat on the bones from Labour about planning reform. What will this mean in practice?
As somebody who has worked extensively in the telecoms industry, I can chime in on what I would change there:
Allow the building of masts in urban areas under permitted development rights
Increase the maximum height of masts in urban areas to an unlimited reasonable height above buildings
Allow extending the height of existing masts without any extra permission up to a higher height (+-30 metres)
Allow building of masts in rural areas up to a maximum of 50-60 metres and allow extension of existing masts up to this height without permission
Allow the building of small cells under permitted development rights in all areas
Allow building of masts/sites next to roads under permitted development rights
This would increase coverage significantly but would actually reduce the number of masts needed as a taller height increases the coverage radius a large amount.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983. Turbo-Trussnomics
Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.
What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %. Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red
There was a real tetchiness in Mandelson's remarks about Reform over the weekend, as if he thought it was the Tories' job to soak up their votes (and therefore keep safe Labour seats safe).
The more the Tories collapse, the harder it becomes for Labour in areas that they are used to taking for granted.
A result along the lines of Lab 35 Con 24 Ref 22 LD 10 Green 4 SnP/PC 3 Others 2
Could mean anything from Lab mega landslide to almost HP depending on vote splits. If Reform have taken what Con they can and start cannibalising Labour votes, the 2019 Con to Lab votes basically, this isn't impossible. And yet it feels like it should be.......
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983. Turbo-Trussnomics
Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.
Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?
I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.
I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.
You're having a Laffer, of course they don't.
The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?
To get growth, we need better productivity, I am hearing even less about how we go about this.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983. Turbo-Trussnomics
Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.
Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?
JL partners with 41 ConRef 54 LLG Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.
First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.
Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.
What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %. Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red
Regarding DKs, can anyone advise whether the raw data are showing a reduction in the proportion of respondents saying DK?
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
I am planning to watch the results on ITV, but if Reform do badly, I will turn over to the BBC to watch the presenters’ faces. I would expect Kuenssberg to look like a melted wellie.
Eh? I find the idea that the BBC are backing Reform astonishing.
Watching the BBC announce the results of the Brexit referendum was like watching them announce the death of the Queen. Even the coverage of the results of the 2019 GE had the sombre air of a death. The BBC's worldview ranges from hard left to centrist. Arguably there might be one or two who quietly favour Cameronite conservatism, but you get no further right than that.
Where might I find this uber left wing BBC? The one I am listening to now (R4 WATO) is busy fellating Nigel Farage.
Indeed. I always laugh when folk accuse the BBC of being left wing. It is metropolitan, and in my mind is biased to whoever is currently in charge or on the up. I doubt there are any “hard left” or “hard right” on staff.
But, they’ve always had a good slug of staff that are members or former members of the Conservative Party. Allegra Stratton, Guto Harri immediately spring to mind. Nick Robinson was a member of the Conservatives in his youth. Sir Robbie Gibb is currently on the Board.
I am sure there are others that jump the other way and end up working for Labour. ‘Twas ever thus.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983. Turbo-Trussnomics
Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.
Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?
It potentially helps stem any loss of anti-Tory votes from Labour. Yes, without encouraging voters back to the Conservatives.
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983. Turbo-Trussnomics
Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.
Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?
Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?
I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.
I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.
You're having a Laffer, of course they don't.
The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?
Like most of the Labour manifesto, there is a lot of buzzwords without a lot of substance.
"Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy. Our approach will be mission-driven and focused on the future. We will work in partnership with industry to seize opportunities and remove barriers to growth."
Well yeah, who wouldn't? Where's the detail, though? How do you plan to do it?
The only solid things the manifesto provides are the creation of a "national wealth fund" (without really telling us what it is, how much it will be worth, what it does in practice) coupled with the following spending promises which, given the size of the UK economy is 2.27 trillion, looks like faffing around a bit at the edges:
£1.8 billion to upgrade ports and build supply chains across the UK £1.5 billion to new gigafactories so our automotive industry leads the world £2.5 billion to rebuild our steel industry £1 billion to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture £500 million to support the manufacturing of green hydrogen.
Not really a plan to get the UK out of its slump.
Couple that with likely tax rises for everyone through indirect taxes, as well as fiscal drag, plus a few populist, bash-the-rich policies that see some HNWIs flee the UK, and you have a recipe for continued managed decline rather than a plan to rejuvenate the economy.
Comments
It takes something quite exceptional (LBJ and the mass protests against Vietnam, for example) to create such a consensus and unseat a sitting president (and even then, it was LBJ deciding not to run).
Just being unpopular isn't enough - and Biden is unusual in that he's governed pretty successfully, while remaining unpopular.
It's also a case that Farage, whilst maybe not being in the direct interest of people who care about the BBC as a public service, is in the interest of media and capital overall - nothing he wants to do is a threat to control of the capitalist class. Indeed, the harsh demonising of immigrants and asylum seekers is what allows a fair number of people to have access to cheap labour who are too scared of looking for support. He won't be able to stop immigrants coming here any more than any other party - but he will make it easier to exploit them. And he will also sell off a lot of government assets whilst he's at it.
He also allows bigoted rich people to feel secure in their idea of self when suggesting that this is really "the will of the people" and that bigotry is somehow an act of being closer to earth when, in fact, much of the evidence suggests that bigotries are often imposed top down, with people in power choosing a group to other, running a campaign of othering, and then pointing to the masses when there is an uptick of that bigotry in the wider population.
So he gets more air time than, say, the Greens, because he is "good" television, he will come in on short notice, and he isn't an ideological threat to what the "sensibles" want to believe.
The only one who gets near is Farage, but in his case the effect is muted by being a one man band.
If they still existed that'd be an airline with marketing challenges.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/russia-to-be-forced-to-surrender-if-not-accepting-terms-of-peace-italian-prime-minister/ar-BB1ojYcw
Russia will be forced to surrender if the Kremlin does not agree to the terms of peace, according to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during the broadcast of the second plenary session of the peace summit.
"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
“Farage is now asked about the resignation of candidate Grant StClair-Armstrong, after it emerged he previously urged people to vote for the BNP.
“Can Farage guarantee you have rid of "unpleasant people" from the party?”
I think this is Sunderland Conservatives up to dirty tricks on Facebook again.
commentator Matthew Goodwin claiming just a handful of seats this election but the collection of 75 RedWall seats next election. He is confirming the death of the Conservative Party followed by the demise of Labour.
But, yes, fair cop on the general point. Not so much about Biden but about Trump. I thought the GOP would be more resistant to going with him again.
My instincts? Still the same on the big question. No Trump2.
So let's see.
In a new motion filed at the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, 777’s Josh Wander & Steven Pasko are accused of “operating a massive, Madoff-scale scheme of fraud to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars” & that “it has become clear that the scheme is falling apart.”
https://x.com/pbsportswriter/status/1802653341811454326
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vv717yvpeo
"Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say"
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.
I find the idea that the BBC are backing Reform astonishing.
Watching the BBC announce the results of the Brexit referendum was like watching them announce the death of the Queen. Even the coverage of the results of the 2019 GE had the sombre air of a death. The BBC's worldview ranges from hard left to centrist. Arguably there might be one or two who quietly favour Cameronite conservatism, but you get no further right than that.
There’s also a complication around parties that are popular in just one of the four nations, which is partly handled by regional coverage being different.
NEW: @RestisPolitics / JLP poll, 14th-16th June
*Reform UK at record high, Tories at record low; Labour lead at 17 points*
Change on last week in brackets
LAB: 40% (-1)
CON: 23% (-1)
REF: 18% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
GRN: 5% (-)
My point about waiting lists below is a generalised one about the collapse of the NHS, and gender politics is of marginal interest in GE2024 in certain constituencies, e.g. Rosie Duffield's. There is some wishy washy wibble in the Con manifesto about biological sex and gender, but no more than we'd already expected from a party that wholeheartedly believes in the conclusions of the Cass Review, and wants to bring a new Section 28 style legislation into schools. That was already a known quantity and isn't new to the GE2024 debate.
I think it's a good thing that the Conservatives have so far mostly stayed out of the trans issue during the election campaign as part of their ongoing 'war against woke'. Indeed, the only reference to it I'm aware of is them tweeting 'Only the Conservatives know what a real woman is' which I'm only familiar with because it was widely quote-tweeted with 'Yeah, but I bet none of them can find the "little man in the boat"...'
So far GE2024 hasn't been the 'war on woke' we were all expecting. And that, at least, is to Sunak and the Conservative Party's credit.
Base coverage on polling and you're putting a lot of power in the hands of pollsters.
Farage is a threat not only to the conservative party but labour and others and he has to be challenged and defeated
It is why I hope 2019 conservative voters will think long and hard before voting and conclude as my wife and I have done to vote conservative to ensure the party receive more votes than Reform and Farage
Starmer is going to be PM on the 5th July anyway
They are promising unlimited spending to the remaining Tory voting demographic (pensioners), and need some marginally plausible (ie imaginary) means of 'funding' theose promises,
What is an exploitative one? That seems very tricky to define. And that member of the public isn't an isolated case, polling has shown this. The ones that stopped you getting a different job at the same time were outlawed.
I wouldn't even mess about going down that road. Rather if you work for the same employer for say 6 or 12 months on a zero-hour contract you should be offered a guaranteed min hours contract, because clearly the company need your labour for a regular amount of hours.
Still an absolute racist w***stain though.
Is it entitled: "And another thing..." with a jabbing finger?
voters vote Conservative he's not.
Sometimes you write utter tripe, sometimes Richard does. TSE does most of the time etc.
You take things a bit too seriously old bean.
41 ConRef
54 LLG
Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting
Are they still as much of an issue as they were then? They seem to have faded in the debate.
Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits
My Dad has voted Tory all his life and is sitting this election out in East Hants (for @Casino_Royale). I think that deeply respectable.
https://x.com/KateEMcCann/status/1802674249737331080
This is a category error.
When he opens his mouth, I think "LIE".
Where businesses had overstepped was these extra conditions on not being able to choose other employers, which again back in the day was never part of being agency worker, and the government rightly banned that.
As I say, I think if you want to do anything you put in rule about offering more stable hours after a period...outside of the most exploitative employers, I think that happens already, as good employers want good reliable employees. They have always used agency / zero-hours to basically fill in temporary busy period and / or trial people for the job.
I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.
I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.
(Or rather, it agrees with my own assessment; I've put money on Vance for VP.)
Felon Seeks Vice
Trump’s VP Search and the Politics of Impotence
https://snyder.substack.com/p/trump-seeks-vice
As somebody who has worked extensively in the telecoms industry, I can chime in on what I would change there:
Allow the building of masts in urban areas under permitted development rights
Increase the maximum height of masts in urban areas to an unlimited reasonable height above buildings
Allow extending the height of existing masts without any extra permission up to a higher height (+-30 metres)
Allow building of masts in rural areas up to a maximum of 50-60 metres and allow extension of existing masts up to this height without permission
Allow the building of small cells under permitted development rights in all areas
Allow building of masts/sites next to roads under permitted development rights
This would increase coverage significantly but would actually reduce the number of masts needed as a taller height increases the coverage radius a large amount.
Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red
The more the Tories collapse, the harder it becomes for Labour in areas that they are used to taking for granted.
Turbo-Trussnomics
The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?
So, y'know, probably not even £90bn.
Lab 35
Con 24
Ref 22
LD 10
Green 4
SnP/PC 3
Others 2
Could mean anything from Lab mega landslide to almost HP depending on vote splits. If Reform have taken what Con they can and start cannibalising Labour votes, the 2019 Con to Lab votes basically, this isn't impossible. And yet it feels like it should be.......
Because, as others have said, you can promise whatever you like when you know you won't be called upon to deliver it.
Criticising cow ramming then sitting down to eat Sunday roast is illogical, says BBC’s John Simpson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/17/bbcs-john-simpson-questions-peoples-upset-cow-hit-by-police/
But, they’ve always had a good slug of staff that are members or former members of the Conservative Party. Allegra Stratton, Guto Harri immediately spring to mind. Nick Robinson was a member of the Conservatives in his youth. Sir Robbie Gibb is currently on the Board.
I am sure there are others that jump the other way and end up working for Labour. ‘Twas ever thus.
https://labour.org.uk/change/kickstart-economic-growth/
"Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy. Our approach will be mission-driven and focused on the future. We will work in partnership with industry to seize opportunities and remove barriers to growth."
Well yeah, who wouldn't? Where's the detail, though? How do you plan to do it?
The only solid things the manifesto provides are the creation of a "national wealth fund" (without really telling us what it is, how much it will be worth, what it does in practice) coupled with the following spending promises which, given the size of the UK economy is 2.27 trillion, looks like faffing around a bit at the edges:
£1.8 billion to upgrade ports and build supply chains across the UK
£1.5 billion to new gigafactories so our automotive industry leads the world
£2.5 billion to rebuild our steel industry
£1 billion to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture
£500 million to support the manufacturing of green hydrogen.
Not really a plan to get the UK out of its slump.
Couple that with likely tax rises for everyone through indirect taxes, as well as fiscal drag, plus a few populist, bash-the-rich policies that see some HNWIs flee the UK, and you have a recipe for continued managed decline rather than a plan to rejuvenate the economy.
Report coming later.
It's the hours of drinking that leads up to the unconsciousness when the bias creeps in.