North Carolina looks like a decent bet for Harris .
The states population has been growing and ethnic minorities now make up 40% of the population . An interesting aspect to that is the large increase in the Asian population over the last 4 years .
The state is a real mix of heavily Rep areas v heavily Dem that’s why running up your totals in your strong areas for either candidate is key .
I doubt Biden would have had much chance given the lack of enthusiasm for him , Harris on the other hand could really run up huge totals in her strong areas .
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Harris has the Big Mo. She’s affable, youthful, and offers a future.
However, this may be wishful thinking. Just because I think she’s the obvious sensible choice doesn’t mean middle America will.
Back home, two things.
First, mega rich Anthony Seldon doesn’t think Truss was so bad. Doesn’t have a knife-edge mortgage or a budget to watch.
Second, I have buyer’s remorse. I kind of expected it, just not on Day 2. Okay, so Labour are better than the Conservatives but jeez they have disappointed. ‘Country first’ just = profoundly unprincipled.
Will that help the tories? Not if they choose Badenoch, which they probably will because the decaying moribund membership are hellbent on taking their party with them to their imminent graves.
And there’s the assessment from the lady who first brought you news of the Labour landslide.
Have a nice weekend
xx
It will be interesting to see how Labour manage their conference. It should be a celebration but may be more subdued. Then the budget to follow.
One lesson of modern times is that it's very hard to take away client groups sweeties, whether WFA, triple lock, 2 child cap or even the WASPI women. People feel entitled.
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
It's no different from how we elect a prime minister.
Of course it's completely different. The closest equivalent in the US would be members of Congress choosing the president. I don't believe any other country in the world elects a president like the US does, though I've seen bizarre claims in the US that all sorts of countries like Germany do (Germany doesn't).
I am hoping that Harris gets a post Convention bounce. If she doesn’t then the parties will have to decide if the current razzmatazz conventions have any purpose whatsoever. She showed a party that was united, powerful and articulate speakers and supported by celebrities and musicians alike. I don’t think it could have gone any better.
Most of the swing states are within 1% or so for Trump or Harris. That’s far too close for comfort. Harris needs a boost of 3-4 percentage points to be comfortable. Right now she isn’t.
Nate Silver really rated her speech which is unusual for him whilst pointing out speeches often don't move polls much if at all.
"I thought this was an excellent speech, delivered by someone who’s become a pretty good — maybe even very good — politician."
To be honest I didn’t as I said last night. Far too many generalities, far too few specifics. This has been picked up by a lot of the right wing media. The general line is we don’t know what a President Harris would do. And then, of course, they fantasise to fill the void.
In fairness to her she has had very little time to flesh out a program. But she needs to get more specific.
Harris' pitch is she's a lot nicer and more normal than Trump and if elected, would do vaguely competent things. It's it enough? I don't know. But I think the criticism she would lose against anyone other than Trump is misplaced. The point is, she is up against Trump.
Liz Truss was a better PM than Boris Johnson, says Anthony Seldon
She may have traumatised the economy, but her predecessor debased public life, Britain’s foremost political biographer claims in new book serialised by The Times Magazine
Tricky choice: who was the worse prime minister? Johnson or Truss,?
And people on here complain about Starmer and means testing of Winter Fuel Payment...
Hard to compare, because their awfulnesses were on such different axes.
The wheels fell off Truss's government much more rapidly and her agenda only worked by ignoring all its downsides. But the worst bits of the disaster were reversed pretty quickly.
Johnson's effect, on behaviour in public life, was probably more corrosive, and some of the stench still lingers.
(Having not had a classical education myself, seeing the excellent Hadestown last night was something of a revelation. Gosh, Greek Gods were shits. How much of that informed BoJo's view of himself and the mortal world?
And more on topic, chilling to think that
How does the wall keep us free? The wall keeps out the enemy And we build the wall to keep us free That's why we build the wall We build the wall to keep us free
was written before Trump the politician was a thing. Little new under the sun.)
It remains close. Harris is ahead in the popular vote in polls by a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton or Biden led Trump and that gap likely narrows further after RFK Jr dropped out.
The swing states remain close with Trump ahead in Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada on average and Harris ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan on average and Pennsylvania and Arizona tied. Ohio is comfortably Trump still in most polls, even more so than Florida
The fact North Carolina is even on that list is a triumph for Harris and shows she has broadened the playing field. Of the ones that Nigel lists in his header that looks the most interesting.
One reason North Carolina is on that list is the Republicans have chosen a medieval candidate for Governor.
"Robinson has promoted various far-right conspiracy theories, engaged in Holocaust denial,[2][3] denied sexual assault allegations against various prominent figures,[4] and has often made inflammatory anti-LGBT,[5][6][7] antisemitic,[8] racist,[9] anti-atheist,[10] and Islamophobic statements.[6][11] He opined in 2023 that abortion should be completely outlawed in North Carolina, despite his paying for an abortion in the 1980s.[12]"
Harris will very likely win North Carolina. Its 16 EC votes largely negate the impact of Nevada and Arizona combined (6 and 11 respectively).
Although I expect her to win both too.
Florida should be a trading bet too. There will be some upcoming close polls. It lkely goes into the election as Toss Up.
I am not nearly as confident as you. But Nigel’s thread header does make a good point. Trump’s main USP is he is a winner, despite losing in 2020. If Harris does get that bounce things could unravel for him in a major way and some states, such as Florida, then become good bets. Too many maybes for me though.
The spectre of Trump is he's never lost against anyone except Biden. It's mad, always has been, but there you go.
Though he has never won against anyone but Clinton.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Hang on, has anyone seen Clarkson and our beloved Casino Royale in the same room together?
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Hi CR.
Harris really is nothing at all like Hilary Clinton.
It’s not just her colour and background. It’s her lack of entitlement, her ability to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in with the under-privileged.
Hilary could and should have won in 2016 if she wasn’t so stuck up.
Chalk and cheese.
Doesn’t guarantee Kamala will win but she’s not repeating Hilary’s mistakes. And she’s 10 years younger than Hilary was and that age mattered. Hilary looked frail in 2016. As Trump does now, nearing 80 years old.
The downfall of Liz Truss — by those who were there
Her premiership was the shortest and most chaotic in British history. In his new book, Anthony Seldon talks to the key aides, allies and civil servants who witnessed the arrogance, the rows, the tears and the meltdowns
The article is rubbish. Truss's premiership wasn't the shortest in history - not even close. The 18th century Long Administration, under the Earl of Bath in 1746, lasted only 48 hours, not 38 days, and anyway was by some measures the best government we've ever had. As a leaflet at the time said, to the astonishment of all wise men, it never transacted one rash thing, and, even more remarkably, left as much money in the Treasury as it found there.
I reckon I could do it for 48 hours. Maybe we all could.
You could probably stay up for the whole thing and then jack it in and go for a nice long sleep after, whilst Seldon wrote a (very) short book about it.
"Casino was one of the greats. He turned up at 10am to chair COBRA, looked terrified, promptly shat himself and then appealed to his officials for help whilst his lower lip wobbled tremendously. But his heart was in the right place, and he meant well. And he at least showed his colleagues how Betfair Exchange worked."
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Man Tits has barred SKS so people talk about his pub not from any political conviction.
Who the fuck still goes to "the pub" anyway? Riot inclined chavs from the Norf and florid piss artists.
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
Having Executive Presidents in the first place is the moronic idea.
I very much agree, although of course politicians love them because they all like the idea of being The Big Boss for a few years.
If they must, they should at least call them what they actually are - Temporary Kings or something similar, and forget about the pretence that they are really accountable, unlike our PM, who can be dismissed by the real Monarch or a simple majority vote in Parliament at any time.
On topic, I'd dispute the suggestion that North Carolina "wasn't even on the radar for Biden". It was a key battleground and the election predictors either had it as a toss-up or leaning Biden in 2020. Indeed, it was a mild surprise that Georgia rather than North Carolina was the one that flipped. I'd suggest Nigel is misremembering.
Of the states mentioned, it seems to me that the best opportunities are those with a strong Democrat in a statewide race as that tends to help the Democrat ticket and means serious money will be spent and attention given by the Democrats, even if the Presidential contest isn't the main reason. Ohio remains a big stretch, but there will certainly be a serious Democrat campaign as re-electing Sherrod Brown as Senator will be a priority. North Carolina looks like a mismatch in the Governor race with a strong Democrat and useless Republican candidate.
Iowa doesn't have a big statewide race, I believe, and I cannot see how there is much of a Democrat campaign in those circumstances. Texas and Florida have Senate races that are on the borders of being competitive, but Democrats in those states are a few points down and need to show some progress over the next month or so, otherwise they will drift off the radar in October and be comfortable enough for Trump.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Hang on, has anyone seen Clarkson and our beloved Casino Royale in the same room together?
I had a friend over from Louisiana in july but talk to them most days, she is a republican voter. She thinks Harris is useless, she also doesn't have time for trump. However the project 2025 stuff has brought her to decide that she has to vote democrat this election....in her words "my daughter is 14....I don't want her growing up in a country that's governed the way the project 2025 people think it should be"
She sounds very engaged? Does the average American voter know what Project 2025 is?
I am hoping that Harris gets a post Convention bounce. If she doesn’t then the parties will have to decide if the current razzmatazz conventions have any purpose whatsoever. She showed a party that was united, powerful and articulate speakers and supported by celebrities and musicians alike. I don’t think it could have gone any better.
Most of the swing states are within 1% or so for Trump or Harris. That’s far too close for comfort. Harris needs a boost of 3-4 percentage points to be comfortable. Right now she isn’t.
Nate Silver really rated her speech which is unusual for him whilst pointing out speeches often don't move polls much if at all.
"I thought this was an excellent speech, delivered by someone who’s become a pretty good — maybe even very good — politician."
To be honest I didn’t as I said last night. Far too many generalities, far too few specifics. This has been picked up by a lot of the right wing media. The general line is we don’t know what a President Harris would do. And then, of course, they fantasise to fill the void.
In fairness to her she has had very little time to flesh out a program. But she needs to get more specific.
Her problem has in any case not really been set-piece speeches to ultra-friendly audiences. It's in person interviews where she has to think on her feet. That's why she hasn't given one yet during the campaign - bizarrely and I think uniquely for a sitting Vice President and Presidential candidate in modern times.
If she were facing anybody except Donald Trump I don't think she'd have a prayer.
I think that she is a formidable and highly underestimated politician. Even now we do know what she won't do. She won't destroy alliances, undermine NATO or betray Ukraine. She won't start needless trade wars with Europe and China. She won't create badly targeted tax breaks, mostly favouring the rich. She won't defund education or the police.
Given her opponent I think that is already a winning platform.
It remains close. Harris is ahead in the popular vote in polls by a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton or Biden led Trump and that gap likely narrows further after RFK Jr dropped out.
The swing states remain close with Trump ahead in Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada on average and Harris ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan on average and Pennsylvania and Arizona tied. Ohio is comfortably Trump still in most polls, even more so than Florida
The fact North Carolina is even on that list is a triumph for Harris and shows she has broadened the playing field. Of the ones that Nigel lists in his header that looks the most interesting.
One reason North Carolina is on that list is the Republicans have chosen a medieval candidate for Governor.
"Robinson has promoted various far-right conspiracy theories, engaged in Holocaust denial,[2][3] denied sexual assault allegations against various prominent figures,[4] and has often made inflammatory anti-LGBT,[5][6][7] antisemitic,[8] racist,[9] anti-atheist,[10] and Islamophobic statements.[6][11] He opined in 2023 that abortion should be completely outlawed in North Carolina, despite his paying for an abortion in the 1980s.[12]"
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
I had a friend over from Louisiana in july but talk to them most days, she is a republican voter. She thinks Harris is useless, she also doesn't have time for trump. However the project 2025 stuff has brought her to decide that she has to vote democrat this election....in her words "my daughter is 14....I don't want her growing up in a country that's governed the way the project 2025 people think it should be"
She sounds very engaged? Does the average American voter know what Project 2025 is?
She actually hadn't heard of it till I mentioned it and sent her a link. She is forwarding it to friends with daughters
On topic, I'd dispute the suggestion that North Carolina "wasn't even on the radar for Biden". It was a key battleground and the election predictors either had it as a toss-up or leaning Biden in 2020. Indeed, it was a mild surprise that Georgia rather than North Carolina was the one that flipped. I'd suggest Nigel is misremembering.
I should have been clearer - I meant not on the radar for him this time around.
On topic, I'd dispute the suggestion that North Carolina "wasn't even on the radar for Biden". It was a key battleground and the election predictors either had it as a toss-up or leaning Biden in 2020. Indeed, it was a mild surprise that Georgia rather than North Carolina was the one that flipped. I'd suggest Nigel is misremembering.
Of the states mentioned, it seems to me that the best opportunities are those with a strong Democrat in a statewide race as that tends to help the Democrat ticket and means serious money will be spent and attention given by the Democrats, even if the Presidential contest isn't the main reason. Ohio remains a big stretch, but there will certainly be a serious Democrat campaign as re-electing Sherrod Brown as Senator will be a priority. North Carolina looks like a mismatch in the Governor race with a strong Democrat and useless Republican candidate.
Iowa doesn't have a big statewide race, I believe, and I cannot see how there is much of a Democrat campaign in those circumstances. Texas and Florida have Senate races that are on the borders of being competitive, but Democrats in those states are a few points down and need to show some progress over the next month or so, otherwise they will drift off the radar in October and be comfortable enough for Trump.
We might see the reverse coattails effect there . Stein many have helped Biden if he remained the nominee . I expect it could help Harris now . What gives her the edge IMO is the enthusiasm increase .
It remains close. Harris is ahead in the popular vote in polls by a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton or Biden led Trump and that gap likely narrows further after RFK Jr dropped out.
The swing states remain close with Trump ahead in Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada on average and Harris ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan on average and Pennsylvania and Arizona tied. Ohio is comfortably Trump still in most polls, even more so than Florida
The fact North Carolina is even on that list is a triumph for Harris and shows she has broadened the playing field. Of the ones that Nigel lists in his header that looks the most interesting.
One reason North Carolina is on that list is the Republicans have chosen a medieval candidate for Governor.
"Robinson has promoted various far-right conspiracy theories, engaged in Holocaust denial,[2][3] denied sexual assault allegations against various prominent figures,[4] and has often made inflammatory anti-LGBT,[5][6][7] antisemitic,[8] racist,[9] anti-atheist,[10] and Islamophobic statements.[6][11] He opined in 2023 that abortion should be completely outlawed in North Carolina, despite his paying for an abortion in the 1980s.[12]"
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Banning politicians, who would never visit, from pubs for publicity reasons is an old, old thing.
Remember it in the 80s.
The left in general will get to learn about unpopularity in the general public consciousness sense. Jokes and memes. That’s part of being in government. I recall that there was almost a moral shock for some, with New Labour - “How can comedians make jokes suggesting we are bad? We are Labour!”
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
Sorry yes I forgot that Clinton won Nevada in 2016
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
At elite level, that's a fair chunk of what we're seeing. A group of voters and commentators used to either getting what they want, or at least being courted, suddenly out in the (political) cold.
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
It's no different from how we elect a prime minister.
Of course it's completely different. The closest equivalent in the US would be members of Congress choosing the president. I don't believe any other country in the world elects a president like the US does, though I've seen bizarre claims in the US that all sorts of countries like Germany do (Germany doesn't).
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Starmer is one of the few politicians you'd want to see in your pub. No nonsense and plenty of custom. If you had a Korma on the menu...
I think Cleverly and Patel pass this test too, out of the Tory candidates.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
The downfall of Liz Truss — by those who were there
Her premiership was the shortest and most chaotic in British history. In his new book, Anthony Seldon talks to the key aides, allies and civil servants who witnessed the arrogance, the rows, the tears and the meltdowns
The article is rubbish. Truss's premiership wasn't the shortest in history - not even close. The 18th century Long Administration, under the Earl of Bath in 1746, lasted only 48 hours, not 38 days, and anyway was by some measures the best government we've ever had. As a leaflet at the time said, to the astonishment of all wise men, it never transacted one rash thing, and, even more remarkably, left as much money in the Treasury as it found there.
I reckon I could do it for 48 hours. Maybe we all could.
You could probably stay up for the whole thing and then jack it in and go for a nice long sleep after, whilst Seldon wrote a (very) short book about it.
"Casino was one of the greats. He turned up at 10am to chair COBRA, looked terrified, promptly shat himself and then appealed to his officials for help whilst his lower lip wobbled tremendously. But his heart was in the right place, and he meant well. And he at least showed his colleagues how Betfair Exchange worked."
From what we have learnt from the betting scandal, that is an accurate description of how government works anyway. You'd fit right in.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Starmer is one of the few politicians you'd want to see in your pub. No nonsense and plenty of custom. If you had a Korma on the menu...
I think Cleverly and Patel pass this test too, out of the Tory candidates.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Starmer is one of the few politicians you'd want to see in your pub. No nonsense and plenty of custom. If you had a Korma on the menu...
I think Cleverly and Patel pass this test too, out of the Tory candidates.
Ed Davey
Only if it's one of those pubs with a kiddie's playground in the back. Ed would enjoy the plastic slide.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
It could be months before the courts have settled the result to be honest.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
I make it 272 Rep - 266 Dem if Trump flips Arizona Georgia and Wisconsin
Edit _ apologies I am looking at the 2024 map, you are talking about the 2020 map!
On the contrarian what if not close, I don't think Trump should be quite as long as 4.2 to win the popular vote.
The Republicans last won the popular vote in 2004.
Prior to that it was 1988.
I don't see that conditions are right for Trump to win the most votes this time, even if he may get the most votes in the right places.
The Electoral College really is about the most moronic system in the democratic world.
It's no different from how we elect a prime minister.
It's very different for at least four reasons.
Firstly, we don't pretend we elect a Prime Minister. Though PMs may try to pretend otherwise, they, as opposed to their party or manifesto, don't have a direct mandate from the people, only an indirect one, which disappears if people lose confidence in them.
Secondly, since the Cameron reforms, our MPs, unlike members of the Electoral College, are allocated reasonably strictly by population (with the exception of the indefensible Western Isles). Whereas, in the Electoral College, you have the idiotic system that gives far more weight to small states, Thus Wyoming has about three times as much influence as it should given its population, while Pennsylvania, Colorado or Florida have significantly less.
Thirdly, the MPs and Monarch who choose the Prime Minister engage with him on a regular basis and are always very familiar with him before he gets the top job. They are a much more informed selectorate than the Electoral College, which generally consists of fourth-rate hacks with time on their hands - a bit like our House of Lords.
Fourthly, in most states implicity, and in many implicity, members of the Electoral College have no discretion as to whom to vote for, unlike MPs and Party Members, who can vote against an underperforming PM. They are simply automatons.
So our system is very different, and though it has its quirks, I would say it is considerably better, maybe because it wasn't designed as a fudge to keep slavery legal.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
At elite level, that's a fair chunk of what we're seeing. A group of voters and commentators used to either getting what they want, or at least being courted, suddenly out in the (political) cold.
Yes and that's what happens when "the other lot" get in after a long period of opposition.
The dynamic has changed - it's changed on here. A number of contributors who were noticeably reticent in the last days of the Conservative administration have come out all guns blazing in opposition to the new Government.
That's the thing with politics (Stodge's Third Law) - attacking an unpopular Government is easy, defending an unpopular Government tests political conviction.
The other problem is there is precious little gratitude in politics. I suspect if you walked up to most pensioners and told them how lucky they had been to have had a Conservative Government looking after them for 14 years, I suspect the response might be interesting.
I had a friend over from Louisiana in july but talk to them most days, she is a republican voter. She thinks Harris is useless, she also doesn't have time for trump. However the project 2025 stuff has brought her to decide that she has to vote democrat this election....in her words "my daughter is 14....I don't want her growing up in a country that's governed the way the project 2025 people think it should be"
She sounds very engaged? Does the average American voter know what Project 2025 is?
She actually hadn't heard of it till I mentioned it and sent her a link. She is forwarding it to friends with daughters
Dems have 100s millions in donations pouring in and a lot of it is going to spent on adverts making sure everyone has heard of Project 2025 by election day.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
I make it 272 Rep - 266 Dem if Trump flips Arizona Georgia and Wisconsin
Edit _ apologies I am looking at the 2024 map, you are talking about the 2020 map!
Be a big surprise if he takes Arizona from here.
Not just his own record to deal with, and an abortion ballot, but that utter loon Kari Lake as a Senate candidate.
If he takes Arizona despite all that, he's heading for a substantial win.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
It remains close. Harris is ahead in the popular vote in polls by a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton or Biden led Trump and that gap likely narrows further after RFK Jr dropped out.
The swing states remain close with Trump ahead in Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada on average and Harris ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan on average and Pennsylvania and Arizona tied. Ohio is comfortably Trump still in most polls, even more so than Florida
The fact North Carolina is even on that list is a triumph for Harris and shows she has broadened the playing field. Of the ones that Nigel lists in his header that looks the most interesting.
One reason North Carolina is on that list is the Republicans have chosen a medieval candidate for Governor.
"Robinson has promoted various far-right conspiracy theories, engaged in Holocaust denial,[2][3] denied sexual assault allegations against various prominent figures,[4] and has often made inflammatory anti-LGBT,[5][6][7] antisemitic,[8] racist,[9] anti-atheist,[10] and Islamophobic statements.[6][11] He opined in 2023 that abortion should be completely outlawed in North Carolina, despite his paying for an abortion in the 1980s.[12]"
Also George Santos and Madison Cawthorn - who were hyped for ticking diversity boxes and then were exposed in office as being totally unsuitable to be there.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
I make it 272 Rep - 266 Dem if Trump flips Arizona Georgia and Wisconsin
Edit _ apologies I am looking at the 2024 map, you are talking about the 2020 map!
Be a big surprise if he takes Arizona from here.
Not just his own record to deal with, and an abortion ballot, but that utter loon Kari Lake as a Senate candidate.
If he takes Arizona despite all that, he's heading for a substantial win.
Not necessarily, in a close election Trump could win the states he won last time plus Nevada, Arizona and Georgia (those are the 3 states Biden won where Trump is currently polling best), and Harris would win the electoral college 270-268
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
It could be months before the courts have settled the result to be honest.
It won't be. Courts move pretty quickly when there is a deadline like inauguration, and both 2020 and 2000 were resolved long before that. Indeed, 2020 was resolved in all meaningful respects pretty early - the "Kracken" lawsuits were designed to draw things out by being as convoluted as possible, but it was obvious almost immediately that they were doomed (dismissed as frivolous time and again, including before Republican appointed judges).
Additionally, all states that are even vaguely close will have war-gamed the hell out of this.
Also, what even vaguely serious lawyer wants to be the new Sidney Powell, or Ken Chesebro, or Rudy Giuliani? If there's a serious case, it will be resolved promptly. If it's frivolous, it will be run but nutcases who will be dismissed out of hand.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
At elite level, that's a fair chunk of what we're seeing. A group of voters and commentators used to either getting what they want, or at least being courted, suddenly out in the (political) cold.
Yes and that's what happens when "the other lot" get in after a long period of opposition.
The dynamic has changed - it's changed on here. A number of contributors who were noticeably reticent in the last days of the Conservative administration have come out all guns blazing in opposition to the new Government.
That's the thing with politics (Stodge's Third Law) - attacking an unpopular Government is easy, defending an unpopular Government tests political conviction.
The other problem is there is precious little gratitude in politics. I suspect if you walked up to most pensioners and told them how lucky they had been to have had a Conservative Government looking after them for 14 years, I suspect the response might be interesting.
Goes back even further than that, though. If you are the sort of Conservative who voted for Blair as a sound chap and a decent Tory really, you have been on the winning side for pretty much your whole life. Back to 1974?
(And, crass as it may be to mention it, this hypothetical voter backed governments who introduced all sorts of welfare squeezes, including on pensioners in the generation above them.)
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada is probably a better prospect than New Hampshire for Trump to win for the first time. He's polling okay there, albeit the Senate race isn't going particularly well for Republicans there which may help Harris.
306-232 looks a pretty convincing win for Biden last time. The recent Montana poll numbers were very similar to 2020 - 57-39 now, 57-40.5 then. However, a 1% fall in the Democratic vote would cost them Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and bring the EV to 269 each.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
It could be months before the courts have settled the result to be honest.
it'd be weeks. the Supreme court would get involved fairly quickly to prevent uncertainty at the point where things have to happen. That's essentially what happened in 2000. if that happens then expect the decision to go Trump's way
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
On topic, I'd dispute the suggestion that North Carolina "wasn't even on the radar for Biden". It was a key battleground and the election predictors either had it as a toss-up or leaning Biden in 2020. Indeed, it was a mild surprise that Georgia rather than North Carolina was the one that flipped. I'd suggest Nigel is misremembering.
Of the states mentioned, it seems to me that the best opportunities are those with a strong Democrat in a statewide race as that tends to help the Democrat ticket and means serious money will be spent and attention given by the Democrats, even if the Presidential contest isn't the main reason. Ohio remains a big stretch, but there will certainly be a serious Democrat campaign as re-electing Sherrod Brown as Senator will be a priority. North Carolina looks like a mismatch in the Governor race with a strong Democrat and useless Republican candidate.
Iowa doesn't have a big statewide race, I believe, and I cannot see how there is much of a Democrat campaign in those circumstances. Texas and Florida have Senate races that are on the borders of being competitive, but Democrats in those states are a few points down and need to show some progress over the next month or so, otherwise they will drift off the radar in October and be comfortable enough for Trump.
Texas and Florida are in play if the Trump era is over, his vote collapses, and Kamala Harris is the lucky beneficiary. Possible. 1 in 8 possible? Not sure.
The downfall of Liz Truss — by those who were there
Her premiership was the shortest and most chaotic in British history. In his new book, Anthony Seldon talks to the key aides, allies and civil servants who witnessed the arrogance, the rows, the tears and the meltdowns
The article is rubbish. Truss's premiership wasn't the shortest in history - not even close. The 18th century Long Administration, under the Earl of Bath in 1746, lasted only 48 hours, not 38 days, and anyway was by some measures the best government we've ever had. As a leaflet at the time said, to the astonishment of all wise men, it never transacted one rash thing, and, even more remarkably, left as much money in the Treasury as it found there.
I reckon I could do it for 48 hours. Maybe we all could.
You could probably stay up for the whole thing and then jack it in and go for a nice long sleep after, whilst Seldon wrote a (very) short book about it.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
Those too old/frail to work were the original charity, way back when. Alongside other peoples children, whose parents were too poor to support them - and those with obvious disabilities, which the rest of us feared would be horrible were it to happen to us.
This charitable impulse should remain at the heart of government welfare, while reforming the tick box / category / "I'm entitled to" / "If X claims it, I don't see why I shouldn't" bullshit.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
Liz Truss was a better PM than Boris Johnson, says Anthony Seldon
She may have traumatised the economy, but her predecessor debased public life, Britain’s foremost political biographer claims in new book serialised by The Times Magazine
Tricky choice: who was the worse prime minister? Johnson or Truss,?
And people on here complain about Starmer and means testing of Winter Fuel Payment...
I like this one... least damaging Tory PM last 15 years
Sunak May Truss Johnson Cameron
Cameron most damaging long-term to the UK for calling the Brexit referendum and austerity.
Sunak least damaging, not a catastrophic PM but mostly for delivering a big labour majority and the chance of competent government after 14 years of graft and utter incompetence.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Who the fuck still goes to "the pub" anyway?
Er, like everyone ?
Please can I back the middle somewhere between who the fuck and everyone?
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Starmer is one of the few politicians you'd want to see in your pub. No nonsense and plenty of custom. If you had a Korma on the menu...
I think Cleverly and Patel pass this test too, out of the Tory candidates.
Not sure they would pass many other tests though. Both seem too lightweight for LOTO. But then again Jenrick is an unknown quantity, Badenoch could be a loose cannon and Tugendhat a mystery on domestic matters. Who does that leave? Oh yeah, Mel Stride.
I see the Russian stock market is now down nearly 25% since May and over 35% since the per war peak. If Ukraine cannot regain all its territory then a ceasefire that involves NO sanctions relief for Russia would be the next best thing.
Clarkson's barring Starmer has done exactly what he wanted it to do. Same with his banned ads for his lager. The man knows how to do PR for his businesses.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
Maths > Politicians Future Promises
Those who lose out don't get to vote against the Maths party.
They do get to vote against those politicians who took away what they've been promised.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
Is there a parallel with Hunt having to cut NI- even if it's not optimal, the system allows you to do it in-year? Introducing a different threshold, or making WFA taxable, would take too long?
(And to repeat a point I've made before, my understanding is that the workings of the triple lock mean that pensioners got two bites of the 10 percent cherry; prices in one year and pay in the next. WFA withdrawal just claws back some of that double bubble. Unless I've misunderstood the numbers, which is certainly possible.)
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
How about hmrc tax records? Pensions get taxed above personal allowance so you can set a cutoff for example at pensioners paying more than x,000 tax dont get it
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s (or younger!) already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
The problem of public spending and who to spend it on, that not the real problem, the real issue is low growth and piss poor productivity. The pie has been shrinking in real terms for nearly 20 years especially if you consider it in per capita terms. We haven't had good solid growth per capita since early 2000s. Until that problem can be solved just going to get worse.
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
Means testing WFA has led to a big increase in people claiming pension credit, which will more than offset the loss of WFA for those people. Those claiming to be concerned about poorer pensioners and those without heating should really be applauding this, if that concern is genuine.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Regardless of principle, as a long-term electoral strategy, surely sensible tories will be questioning whether it was worth it?
The ungrateful bastards ended up switching to reform, pretty much en masse.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
Maths > Politicians Future Promises
Those who lose out don't get to vote against the Maths party.
They do get to vote against those politicians who took away what they've been promised.
Sure, the public expect unrealistic things, the politicians promise unrealistic things and then the public get pissed off with the politicians. It was ever thus even if the rate of silliness has increased.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
How about hmrc tax records? Pensions get taxed above personal allowance so you can set a cutoff for example at pensioners paying more than x,000 tax dont get it
It ought to be quite simple to send a letter to non-tax paying pensioners that they are entitled to WFA. A bit more difficult if they are in self assessment.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
His detailed suggestion is use households with Council Tax bands ABC or ABCD as an approximate proxy, plus a small "cover any gaps" fund via local authorities. That was used during the energy crisis.
My slight question on that is that ABCs are the dwellings with the lowest heating bills, but OTOH I have long argued that things should be slanted to encourage older couples and singletons to move to reasonably sized dwellings as an efficient-use-of-housing measure.
My suggestion might be to boost old age pension by perhaps £500 per annum, then a good deal of it comes back through income tax from the wealthier pensioner . And put the rest of the cost on one of the wealth taxes that is on the way - perhaps by reforming of Council Tax to be less regressive more aggressively. Simpler administratively, but it has some extra ingredients in the pot and some people would jump 10ft in the air in fury.
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
Means testing WFA has led to a big increase in people claiming pension credit, which will more than offset the loss of WFA for those people. Those claiming to be concerned about poorer pensioners and those without heating should really be applauding this, if that concern is genuine.
Has it? News to me. I would expect it to have increased take up but I’ve seen no figures confirming that yet. I would be very pleased if it had led to people claiming more if they’re entitled to it, though the cut off for pension credit is still low and politically the policy will still be damaging IMHO.
Harris has the Big Mo. She’s affable, youthful, and offers a future.
However, this may be wishful thinking. Just because I think she’s the obvious sensible choice doesn’t mean middle America will.
Back home, two things.
First, mega rich Anthony Seldon doesn’t think Truss was so bad. Doesn’t have a knife-edge mortgage or a budget to watch.
Second, I have buyer’s remorse. I kind of expected it, just not on Day 2. Okay, so Labour are better than the Conservatives but jeez they have disappointed. ‘Country first’ just = profoundly unprincipled.
Will that help the tories? Not if they choose Badenoch, which they probably will because the decaying moribund membership are hellbent on taking their party with them to their imminent graves.
And there’s the assessment from the lady who first brought you news of the Labour landslide.
Have a nice weekend
xx
It will be interesting to see how Labour manage their conference. It should be a celebration but may be more subdued. Then the budget to follow.
One lesson of modern times is that it's very hard to take away client groups sweeties, whether WFA, triple lock, 2 child cap or even the WASPI women. People feel entitled.
It’s even harder when you’ve spent years before being elected claiming you would protect those sweeties. I think it very quickly feeds into the ‘they’re all the same’ narrative which is the default setting currently.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
The relentless hatred of benefits scroungers [sic] inculcated by the Tories and the right-wing media has a lot to do with the 'pride', irrespective of the truth or falsity of the basic concept.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
I think that Martin Lewis was spot on on the Winter Fuel Allowance .. especially for this year when various Covid / energy crisis things have just.
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
He's 100% right but what dataset do you use to identify the people who qualify? Remember the point I've repeated since the day this was announced - the only datasets available are all pensioners or those getting pension credit,
How about hmrc tax records? Pensions get taxed above personal allowance so you can set a cutoff for example at pensioners paying more than x,000 tax dont get it
I don't think works @Pagan2 because of the move to draw down pensions where pensioners can choose when to take their pension. Drawdown is more appealing to the more well off pensioners who don't need to rely on a regular income and have savings. Both my wife and I have just about left our pension pots alone, taking small withdrawals to take us up to the tax free limit each year. Using your mechanism you will be giving me and many like me the bonus and not people considerably poorer than me.
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
Means testing WFA has led to a big increase in people claiming pension credit, which will more than offset the loss of WFA for those people. Those claiming to be concerned about poorer pensioners and those without heating should really be applauding this, if that concern is genuine.
Has it? News to me. I would expect it to have increased take up but I’ve seen no figures confirming that yet. I would be very pleased if it had led to people claiming more if they’re entitled to it, though the cut off for pension credit is still low and politically the policy will still be damaging IMHO.
The Martin Lewis suggestion that of 880k people not claiming pension credit who are entitled to it, the impact would be to increase claims by perhaps 80k people ie marginal.
I saw a comment from a US pollster last night that polling on Harris shows that she was, until the start of this week, largely unknown to most of the US public. Obviously they knew she was VP, but they had little opinion on her as a person or as a politician. This got me thinking: a presidential candidate is defined for the voters in two ways: a) they are the incumbent, with all the positives and negatives that that entails; they will have been seen taking positions on high profile issues, running a competent or incompetent administration, and so on. And the media from the other side of the spectrum will have been attacking them for some time. So the candidate will largely be defined by factors beyond their direct control. b) they have won through the primary process. While the fact of winning is going to be down to a number of positive factors, the voters will have seen them get attacked by other primary candidates, the opposing party, and opposing media. Again, the public perception of the candidate wil be largely created oppositionally.
Now for Harris, the quick handover from Biden, and the rapid coalescing of the party behind her, means the Republicans and their media have not had the chance to define her on their terms. And now the public perception will be formed on the basis of a universally positive convention, which has garnered very impressive ratings - this being the other point the pollster made, that people want to find out about Harris, and were looking to the convention to learn about her.
So, to conclude, I think that Trump and the Republicans are going to struggle to find a negative framing for Harris, because the public perception is already hardening into a fixed view. There may or may not be a convention 'bounce', but it has served a useful purpose already.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
I suppose he probably didn't need to formally bar Rishi Sunak, given that he only serves meat dishes and Sunak is a vegetarian?
Banning politicians, who would never visit, from pubs for publicity reasons is an old, old thing.
Remember it in the 80s.
The left in general will get to learn about unpopularity in the general public consciousness sense. Jokes and memes. That’s part of being in government. I recall that there was almost a moral shock for some, with New Labour - “How can comedians make jokes suggesting we are bad? We are Labour!”
A shock also to those on the right who did not realise many of the jokes came because they were the government, not because they were Conservative.
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s (or younger!) already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
I tend to agree with that. So I support the triple lock until state pensions reach an acceptable basic level. However a mechanism needs to be implemented to ensure people like me do not get things like the winter fuel allowance and Christmas bonus. Labour does seem to have taken the right approach, but it does need to get those not getting these benefits on to them
Has the £10 Christmas bonus been cut. It should be, if for no other reason £10 is ridiculous. I shouldn't get, but maybe those on benefits could do with £100.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
Comments
I'm on NC at 2.56
Might dip into Ohio as a fun bet/trader.
The states population has been growing and ethnic minorities now make up 40% of the population . An interesting aspect to that is the large increase in the Asian population over the last 4 years .
The state is a real mix of heavily Rep areas v heavily Dem that’s why running up your totals in your strong areas for either candidate is key .
I doubt Biden would have had much chance given the lack of enthusiasm for him , Harris on the other hand could really run up huge totals in her strong areas .
One lesson of modern times is that it's very hard to take away client groups sweeties, whether WFA, triple lock, 2 child cap or even the WASPI women. People feel entitled.
The wheels fell off Truss's government much more rapidly and her agenda only worked by ignoring all its downsides. But the worst bits of the disaster were reversed pretty quickly.
Johnson's effect, on behaviour in public life, was probably more corrosive, and some of the stench still lingers.
(Having not had a classical education myself, seeing the excellent Hadestown last night was something of a revelation. Gosh, Greek Gods were shits. How much of that informed BoJo's view of himself and the mortal world?
And more on topic, chilling to think that
How does the wall keep us free?
The wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
was written before Trump the politician was a thing. Little new under the sun.)
Harris really is nothing at all like Hilary Clinton.
It’s not just her colour and background. It’s her lack of entitlement, her ability to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in with the under-privileged.
Hilary could and should have won in 2016 if she wasn’t so stuck up.
Chalk and cheese.
Doesn’t guarantee Kamala will win but she’s not repeating Hilary’s mistakes. And she’s 10 years younger than Hilary was and that age mattered. Hilary looked frail in 2016. As Trump does now, nearing 80 years old.
The younger one will win it.
Who the fuck still goes to "the pub" anyway? Riot inclined chavs from the Norf and florid piss artists.
If they must, they should at least call them what they actually are - Temporary Kings or something similar, and forget about the pretence that they are really accountable, unlike our PM, who can be dismissed by the real Monarch or a simple majority vote in Parliament at any time.
Of the states mentioned, it seems to me that the best opportunities are those with a strong Democrat in a statewide race as that tends to help the Democrat ticket and means serious money will be spent and attention given by the Democrats, even if the Presidential contest isn't the main reason. Ohio remains a big stretch, but there will certainly be a serious Democrat campaign as re-electing Sherrod Brown as Senator will be a priority. North Carolina looks like a mismatch in the Governor race with a strong Democrat and useless Republican candidate.
Iowa doesn't have a big statewide race, I believe, and I cannot see how there is much of a Democrat campaign in those circumstances. Texas and Florida have Senate races that are on the borders of being competitive, but Democrats in those states are a few points down and need to show some progress over the next month or so, otherwise they will drift off the radar in October and be comfortable enough for Trump.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Even now we do know what she won't do. She won't destroy alliances, undermine NATO or betray Ukraine. She won't start needless trade wars with Europe and China. She won't create badly targeted tax breaks, mostly favouring the rich. She won't defund education or the police.
Given her opponent I think that is already a winning platform.
As is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_White
the GOP's senatorial candidate in Minnesota.
And as is Herschel Walker, the GOP's 2022 senatorial candidate in Georgia.
I do wonder if the GOP is trying to reach out to black voters in the wrong way and thereby picking some totally unsuitable candidates.
My guess is the billionaires in grey suits would have already replaced Trump with JD Vance if the latter had not proved shockingly poor.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/winter-fuel-payments-scrapped-unless-youre-on-benefits-atFfl5o4PfNA
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
Given its elections since then it is now voting more like Missouri to its south than Minnesota to its north.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz
Remember it in the 80s.
The left in general will get to learn about unpopularity in the general public consciousness sense. Jokes and memes. That’s part of being in government. I recall that there was almost a moral shock for some, with New Labour - “How can comedians make jokes suggesting we are bad? We are Labour!”
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/
"only the U.S. has a system in which voters elect a body of “electors” whose sole function is to actually choose the president"
I think Cleverly and Patel pass this test too, out of the Tory candidates.
That's how close it is last time - nearly 3.5 million people voted in Arizona, the winning majority was 10,000. That would equate to a constituency here with 35,000 votes and a winning majority of 100 - we had seven constituencies in July where the winning majority was less than 100.
Edit _ apologies I am looking at the 2024 map, you are talking about the 2020 map!
Firstly, we don't pretend we elect a Prime Minister. Though PMs may try to pretend otherwise, they, as opposed to their party or manifesto, don't have a direct mandate from the people, only an indirect one, which disappears if people lose confidence in them.
Secondly, since the Cameron reforms, our MPs, unlike members of the Electoral College, are allocated reasonably strictly by population (with the exception of the indefensible Western Isles). Whereas, in the Electoral College, you have the idiotic system that gives far more weight to small states, Thus Wyoming has about three times as much influence as it should given its population, while Pennsylvania, Colorado or Florida have significantly less.
Thirdly, the MPs and Monarch who choose the Prime Minister engage with him on a regular basis and are always very familiar with him before he gets the top job. They are a much more informed selectorate than the Electoral College, which generally consists of fourth-rate hacks with time on their hands - a bit like our House of Lords.
Fourthly, in most states implicity, and in many implicity, members of the Electoral College have no discretion as to whom to vote for, unlike MPs and Party Members, who can vote against an underperforming PM. They are simply automatons.
So our system is very different, and though it has its quirks, I would say it is considerably better, maybe because it wasn't designed as a fudge to keep slavery legal.
The dynamic has changed - it's changed on here. A number of contributors who were noticeably reticent in the last days of the Conservative administration have come out all guns blazing in opposition to the new Government.
That's the thing with politics (Stodge's Third Law) - attacking an unpopular Government is easy, defending an unpopular Government tests political conviction.
The other problem is there is precious little gratitude in politics. I suspect if you walked up to most pensioners and told them how lucky they had been to have had a Conservative Government looking after them for 14 years, I suspect the response might be interesting.
Not just his own record to deal with, and an abortion ballot, but that utter loon Kari Lake as a Senate candidate.
If he takes Arizona despite all that, he's heading for a substantial win.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
Additionally, all states that are even vaguely close will have war-gamed the hell out of this.
Also, what even vaguely serious lawyer wants to be the new Sidney Powell, or Ken Chesebro, or Rudy Giuliani? If there's a serious case, it will be resolved promptly. If it's frivolous, it will be run but nutcases who will be dismissed out of hand.
(And, crass as it may be to mention it, this hypothetical voter backed governments who introduced all sorts of welfare squeezes, including on pensioners in the generation above them.)
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
Getting around that poisoning of the well is one advantage of universal benefits , and another is the lack of cost of bureaucracy.
It's also one reason why the state pension is so relentlessly marketed as "National Insurance" and by implication an immutable right, rather than a 'benefit'; the failure to pay it on time as promised is naturally regarded as if Big Assurance PLC had suddenly decided to cheat its policyholders. You know, I know, but that's the image sedulously built up by HMG.
Though, having said that, I've never forgotten being left all her estate by an honorary granny. She was poor and had little but her state pension, but to my surprise she had more than enough to pay for her funeral.
Ultimately a working-class article of faith stemming from being sold off for dissection per 1832 Anatomy Act or sent to a pauper's grave, if you didn't have any relatives - or so the legal weasel wording ran, for it really meant "relatives with enough money to pay for the funeral". So hard cheese if your relatives were also poor.
This charitable impulse should remain at the heart of government welfare, while reforming the tick box / category / "I'm entitled to" / "If X claims it, I don't see why I shouldn't" bullshit.
Just my 2p.
(*as much)
Sunak
May
Truss
Johnson
Cameron
Cameron most damaging long-term to the UK for calling the Brexit referendum and austerity.
Sunak least damaging, not a catastrophic PM but mostly for delivering a big labour majority and the chance of competent government after 14 years of graft and utter incompetence.
https://apnews.com/article/early-voting-mail-ballots-election-97c2bd30abf227772481edb4f2cc5413
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101707/how-often-brits-eat-and-drink-in-pubs/
He says that withdrawing it from the better off pensioners is correct, but that withdrawing it from everyone with an income of £11k per annum is much too harsh, which is I think leaving it only for the poorest 10-15%.
He thinks the cut off should be higher - perhaps that 1/3 to 1/2 of households should get WFA. To me that feels about right, but it's difficult to measure that point.
A system designed to enrich lawyers and create conspiracies.
I see the Russian stock market is now down nearly 25% since May and over 35% since the per war peak. If Ukraine cannot regain all its territory then a ceasefire that involves NO sanctions relief for Russia would be the next best thing.
Does anyone have an age profile of MPs of the various parties - either by age or social group (Gen Z, Millennial etc.)?
Thanks.
They do get to vote against those politicians who took away what they've been promised.
(And to repeat a point I've made before, my understanding is that the workings of the triple lock mean that pensioners got two bites of the 10 percent cherry; prices in one year and pay in the next. WFA withdrawal just claws back some of that double bubble. Unless I've misunderstood the numbers, which is certainly possible.)
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s (or younger!) already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
The ungrateful bastards ended up switching to reform, pretty much en masse.
My slight question on that is that ABCs are the dwellings with the lowest heating bills, but OTOH I have long argued that things should be slanted to encourage older couples and singletons to move to reasonably sized dwellings as an efficient-use-of-housing measure.
My suggestion might be to boost old age pension by perhaps £500 per annum, then a good deal of it comes back through income tax from the wealthier pensioner
https://www.bbc.com/articles/cz55mjj4rlgo
This got me thinking: a presidential candidate is defined for the voters in two ways:
a) they are the incumbent, with all the positives and negatives that that entails; they will have been seen taking positions on high profile issues, running a competent or incompetent administration, and so on. And the media from the other side of the spectrum will have been attacking them for some time. So the candidate will largely be defined by factors beyond their direct control.
b) they have won through the primary process. While the fact of winning is going to be down to a number of positive factors, the voters will have seen them get attacked by other primary candidates, the opposing party, and opposing media. Again, the public perception of the candidate wil be largely created oppositionally.
Now for Harris, the quick handover from Biden, and the rapid coalescing of the party behind her, means the Republicans and their media have not had the chance to define her on their terms. And now the public perception will be formed on the basis of a universally positive convention, which has garnered very impressive ratings - this being the other point the pollster made, that people want to find out about Harris, and were looking to the convention to learn about her.
So, to conclude, I think that Trump and the Republicans are going to struggle to find a negative framing for Harris, because the public perception is already hardening into a fixed view. There may or may not be a convention 'bounce', but it has served a useful purpose already.
Has the £10 Christmas bonus been cut. It should be, if for no other reason £10 is ridiculous. I shouldn't get, but maybe those on benefits could do with £100.
Pensioner Cost of Living Payment
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-of-living-payment
Is Reeves going to continue that ?
It would be illogical to do so - the increase in the state pension takes into account inflation.
But if she doesn't then that's going to be another thing for the oldies to be upset about.