Car deliveries halted amid fears motor finance scandal is ‘bigger than PPI’
Honda and BMW pause sales following shock ruling on salesmen commissions
Carmakers including Honda and BMW have temporarily halted sales to customers in recent days as the industry grapples with a motor finance scandal that lawyers have warned will be “bigger than PPI”.
Honda last weekend ordered showrooms not to deliver vehicles bought via financing deals following a shock court ruling on commissions paid to car salesmen.
BMW also told dealerships to pause, although both companies have since resumed deliveries using interim arrangements.
It comes after banks, car manufacturers and dealers flew into a panic on Friday when Court of Appeal judges ruled that commission fees added to financing deals – a standard arrangement used for decades – were in fact unlawful.
SHOECON 5: lower state of readiness, shoes only slightly polished. In the event of escalation our Deputy OGH will be ferried to Mount Weather where he will have access to shoe polishes across the nation, ready to buff at a moment's notice with a dramatic shade of Burnt Umber.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Not really. Biden was, of course. But the only two in the twentieth century who became President via election were Nixon and Bush.
Before that, the only one who did so after 1804 was Martin Van Buuren.
So Harris would definitely be the exception, not the rule.
A few more have been candidates - Humphrey, Mondale, Gore - but it's not a great stepping stone electorally.
It does of course have the advantage for say, Vance (who'd surely never get there on his own) of being one heartbeat away. In this case, the old and decrepit heart of Donald Trump...
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Not really. Biden was, of course. But the only two in the twentieth century who became President via election were Nixon and Bush.
Before that, the only one who did so after 1804 was Martin Van Buuren.
So Harris would definitely be the exception, not the rule.
A few more have been candidates - Humphrey, Mondale, Gore - but it's not a great stepping stone electorally.
It does of course have the advantage for say, Vance (who'd surely never get there on his own) of being one heartbeat away. In this case, the old and decrepit heart of Donald Trump...
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
Car deliveries halted amid fears motor finance scandal is ‘bigger than PPI’
Honda and BMW pause sales following shock ruling on salesmen commissions
Carmakers including Honda and BMW have temporarily halted sales to customers in recent days as the industry grapples with a motor finance scandal that lawyers have warned will be “bigger than PPI”.
Honda last weekend ordered showrooms not to deliver vehicles bought via financing deals following a shock court ruling on commissions paid to car salesmen.
BMW also told dealerships to pause, although both companies have since resumed deliveries using interim arrangements.
It comes after banks, car manufacturers and dealers flew into a panic on Friday when Court of Appeal judges ruled that commission fees added to financing deals – a standard arrangement used for decades – were in fact unlawful.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
What’s the allegation (left Twitter a few years back and it’s hard to see as a non member now). Are the evil Dems getting more votes?
Car deliveries halted amid fears motor finance scandal is ‘bigger than PPI’
Honda and BMW pause sales following shock ruling on salesmen commissions
Carmakers including Honda and BMW have temporarily halted sales to customers in recent days as the industry grapples with a motor finance scandal that lawyers have warned will be “bigger than PPI”.
Honda last weekend ordered showrooms not to deliver vehicles bought via financing deals following a shock court ruling on commissions paid to car salesmen.
BMW also told dealerships to pause, although both companies have since resumed deliveries using interim arrangements.
It comes after banks, car manufacturers and dealers flew into a panic on Friday when Court of Appeal judges ruled that commission fees added to financing deals – a standard arrangement used for decades – were in fact unlawful.
I can't get any discount when I buy a new car for cash against the finance price. And now the mugs who took finance are going to get oodles of compo to boot?
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
Vegetables come from farms too.
We should close all the farms and just eat ready meals from shops. For the climate.
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
What’s the allegation (left Twitter a few years back and it’s hard to see as a non member now). Are the evil Dems getting more votes?
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
I am sure they are devastated by losing your support
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do.
Eg this idea they can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banned from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Which bit are you disagreeing with?
a) The country is in a mess b) The country can't be fixed by parties that get elected for a five year term
I believe both a and b to be true
For a given value of "fixed", I think b) is untrue. The UK will never be finished as a project, but I think it certainly possible for a government to fix the problems it inherits while at the same time there being some new problems which come up which require resolution.
The current lot of problems probably requires a decade, but I think definitely possible a govt making progress wins re election, particularly if the opposition don't look much good.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Kemi
BADENOCH
Is THIS some kind of masonic handshake that I haven't picked up on?
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
They will do what Putin does, they are Putinistas, just US ones rather Russians.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
Vegetables come from farms too.
We should close all the farms and just eat ready meals from shops. For the climate.
Shops??? - who needs them? Surely everyone can just eat at 7 star hotels full of Russians in Monaco?
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Not really. Biden was, of course. But the only two in the twentieth century who became President via election were Nixon and Bush.
Before that, the only one who did so after 1804 was Martin Van Buuren.
So Harris would definitely be the exception, not the rule.
A few more have been candidates - Humphrey, Mondale, Gore - but it's not a great stepping stone electorally.
It does of course have the advantage for say, Vance (who'd surely never get there on his own) of being one heartbeat away. In this case, the old and decrepit heart of Donald Trump...
Thanks. I honestly thought it was more than that.
But there have been others who took over the presidency mid-term and then won an election in their own right. Harry S Truman and LBJ come to mind.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
I hate to break this to you, but not all farms are non-arable. A massive amount of acreage is devoted to growing crops, not cows, and these will also be affected.
I do wonder what you eat? Because it will have had farming somewhere at the bottom of the supplier chain, however tossified the description of the honey roasted vegetable lasagne you subsist on is.
All this move will do is accelerate the move from small, independent farms to massive farms. And that'll be a loss, both to individuals and nature.
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Kemi
BADENOCH
Is THIS some kind of masonic handshake that I haven't picked up on?
Don't worry. When we want to see you, We will... send for you.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
Vegetables come from farms too.
We should close all the farms and just eat ready meals from shops. For the climate.
Shops??? - who needs them? Surely everyone can just eat at 7 star hotels full of Russians in Monaco?
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
HY of this parish is, either way, now nicely set up for reminding right-leaning PB’ers that they should have chosen Cleverly, whatever the future holds.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
I hate to break this to you, but not all farms are non-arable. A massive amount of acreage is devoted to growing crops, not cows, and these will also be affected.
I do wonder what you eat? Because it will have had farming somewhere at the bottom of the supplier chain, however tossified the description of the honey roasted vegetable lasagne you subsist on is.
All this move will do is accelerate the move from small, independent farms to massive farms. And that'll be a loss, both to individuals and nature.
Come now. Giant agribusiness has been at the very forefront of animal welfare, food standards, reductions in chemicals and moving up the value chain to high quality produce.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
I hate to break this to you, but not all farms are non-arable. A massive amount of acreage is devoted to growing crops, not cows, and these will also be affected.
I do wonder what you eat? Because it will have had farming somewhere at the bottom of the supplier chain, however tossified the description of the honey roasted vegetable lasagne you subsist on is.
All this move will do is accelerate the move from small, independent farms to massive farms. And that'll be a loss, both to individuals and nature.
(Deleted as I'd got confused by too many negations)
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
Martin Lewis did an excellent pre-Brexit piece, where he said he would be voting for Remain, but explained all the reasons why Brexit might be a good idea.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do.
Eg this idea they can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banned from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Which bit are you disagreeing with?
a) The country is in a mess b) The country can't be fixed by parties that get elected for a five year term
I believe both a and b to be true
I'm saying it can't be fixed period. It's not that kind of thing. But, yes, our politics could be more honest and if it were that would help. But there's that electorate in the way. They don't reward honesty.
So you are saying the same...it can't be fixed by our current democratic set up....why are you disagreeing then?
I wasn't pagan. I'm agreeing with the thrust of your point. Except for your implication that it can be fixed by some other system. I'm then saying this additional thing that people have unrealistic views of what governments can "fix". And citing as a prime example of this the notion that they can transform our growth prospects.
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
Martin Lewis did an excellent pre-Brexit piece, where he said he would be voting for Remain, but explained all the reasons why Brexit might be a good idea.
Yes there was space for a lot more nuance in 2016. I voted leave but could see all the reasons to vote remain, and thought long and hard about it. If you watch the surface level debate you’d think everyone was dogmatic and fixed in their view.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
I hate to break this to you, but not all farms are non-arable. A massive amount of acreage is devoted to growing crops, not cows, and these will also be affected.
I do wonder what you eat? Because it will have had farming somewhere at the bottom of the supplier chain, however tossified the description of the honey roasted vegetable lasagne you subsist on is.
All this move will do is accelerate the move from small, independent farms to massive farms. And that'll be a loss, both to individuals and nature.
(Deleted as I'd got confused by too many negations)
Dan the tax guy says it is actually £2m as the farmhouse is included and that gets £1m IHT discount (assuming married couple are farming).
I don't get the meltdown.
If the "small family farm" really is +£2m then
If the sons/daughters really want to be farmers then hand the farm on with plenty of time to use the 7 year rule which has stayed intact.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
Martin Lewis did an excellent pre-Brexit piece, where he said he would be voting for Remain, but explained all the reasons why Brexit might be a good idea.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
I don't think any party can be honest with what needs to be done and still get elected frankly
the corollary to that is therefore democracy can no longer work as we can't fix the country while using it. I have an absolute preference for democracy however if it can't fix our current situation maybe for a time we need to fall back on something else. Just like in ww2, I don't think anyone wanted rationing but we needed to do it.
Here's the thing, though.
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
The words emotional intelligence wet Brexit voters umis a non sequitor.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
I don't think any party can be honest with what needs to be done and still get elected frankly
the corollary to that is therefore democracy can no longer work as we can't fix the country while using it. I have an absolute preference for democracy however if it can't fix our current situation maybe for a time we need to fall back on something else. Just like in ww2, I don't think anyone wanted rationing but we needed to do it.
Here's the thing, though.
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
No.
Depends if they installed me and my benevolent rule.
Anyone who feels sorry for Jeremy Clarkson and his Brexiteer farmers hoot your horns.......
I suspect there are going to substantial demonstrations outside number 10 by the farming community and those new labour mps in rural constituencies are unlikely to win at the next GE
A price worth paying. After watching the film 'COW' which turned me into a vegetarian I put them alongside fox hunters in my list of undesirables.
You do realise your are in advertising, an industry that most people regard in the utmost contempt only probably beaten by estate agents, lawyers and politicians.....here is your ticket to the B Ark
Read his article. He doesn’t say he now supports Brexit, it’s a mea culpa about how he never should have been so dismissive and cruel about Brexit voters, and can now see where they were coming from and why they voted as they did. The sort of emotional intelligence most prominent remainers lack.
The words emotional intelligence wet Brexit voters umis a non sequitor.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I cannot emphasise enough that you cannot tell what's going on from early voting figures in the US. Historic attempts to use them to predict results have been hopeless inaccurate. It's not a representative sample.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h The only minor exception is Nevada where nearly everyone votes early. And even then it can be misleading and v hard to intepret.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I cannot emphasise enough that you cannot tell what's going on from early voting figures in the US. Historic attempts to use them to predict results have been hopeless inaccurate. It's not a representative sample.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h The only minor exception is Nevada where nearly everyone votes early. And even then it can be misleading and v hard to intepret.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
Non-dom numbers are a surprise! And since we are building HS2 anyway, why do people want it to end at Old Oak Common.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
The worst ratings are for investment and HS2.....we may as well give up.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do. This is mainly the fault of the electorate.
Eg this idea that the government (Tory or Labour) can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banning them from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Hm. I think I get where you're coming from. Growth can't be magicked out of nowhere simply by wanting it, just as you can't legislate for sunshine. But politicians can do a lot to inhibit growth. So by not doing those things, they can promote growth. Of course, some of those obviously growth-inhibiting things are things which on balance we might want to do anyway - like, for example, green belt protection.
Yes they can do things that damage growth. There's been a big one in recent times. But that wasn't their fault since it was directly mandated.
But my point is that "growth" has become a mantra and a tool for truth avoidance. We can grow at about average for the type of country we are and that's it.
"How will you fund these tax cuts?" Growth "
"What's paying for these spending increases?" "Extra growth."
"So which is it to be, tax rises or spending cuts," "That's a false choice. We need more growth."
Etc. I'd love to see the back of those sorts of exchanges and the best way to do that (imo) is to ban the G word in political discourse.
If we did that for a prolonged period we'd get better communications, better decisions, and in all probability more ... Growth.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
Pretty poor poll for Starmer and Reeves overall. Most budgets are reasonably popular overall even if one or 2 measures end up much more unpopular. If Yougov are right less than half of voters back the majority of measures in it, only raising taxes on private jets, freezing fuel duty and increasing the minimum wage and spending on schools and the NHS are very popular.
The increased borrowing, HS2 extension, NI for employers' rise, inheritance tax extension and bus fare cap rise all have less than a third support. Even the CGT rise has just 39% in favour
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do. This is mainly the fault of the electorate.
Eg this idea that the government (Tory or Labour) can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banning them from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Hm. I think I get where you're coming from. Growth can't be magicked out of nowhere simply by wanting it, just as you can't legislate for sunshine. But politicians can do a lot to inhibit growth. So by not doing those things, they can promote growth. Of course, some of those obviously growth-inhibiting things are things which on balance we might want to do anyway - like, for example, green belt protection.
Yes they can do things that damage growth. There's been a big one in recent times. But that wasn't their fault since it was directly mandated.
But my point is that "growth" has become a mantra and a tool for truth avoidance. We can grow at about average for the type of country we are and that's it.
"How will you fund these tax cuts?" Growth "
"What's paying for these spending increases?" "Extra growth."
"So which is it to be, tax rises or spending cuts," "That's a false choice. We need more growth."
Etc. I'd love to see the back of those sorts of exchanges and the best way to do that (imo) is to ban the G word in political discourse.
If we did that for a prolonged period we'd get better communications, better decisions, and in all probability more ... Growth.
We actually spend far too much political time and energy on the economy. We should switch to health, which would perversely be the best thing we can do for the economy anyway.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
Non-dom numbers are a surprise! And since we are building HS2 anyway, why do people want it to end at Old Oak Common.
I think generally most people dislike any infrastructure they dont use themselves directly. So if they wont travel London - North West they dont want "their money" spent on it. Separating out personal and national interests is not a thing for most.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
I dislike both Badenoch and Jenrick but will be happy to see the back of the latter. At least Badenoch might bring something different to the table , and as far as I know she hasn’t had murals painted over !
He might be back if Badenoch does badly at or before the next election - he is a young man still.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do. This is mainly the fault of the electorate.
Eg this idea that the government (Tory or Labour) can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banning them from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Hm. I think I get where you're coming from. Growth can't be magicked out of nowhere simply by wanting it, just as you can't legislate for sunshine. But politicians can do a lot to inhibit growth. So by not doing those things, they can promote growth. Of course, some of those obviously growth-inhibiting things are things which on balance we might want to do anyway - like, for example, green belt protection.
Yes they can do things that damage growth. There's been a big one in recent times. But that wasn't their fault since it was directly mandated.
But my point is that "growth" has become a mantra and a tool for truth avoidance. We can grow at about average for the type of country we are and that's it.
"How will you fund these tax cuts?" Growth "
"What's paying for these spending increases?" "Extra growth."
"So which is it to be, tax rises or spending cuts," "That's a false choice. We need more growth."
Etc. I'd love to see the back of those sorts of exchanges and the best way to do that (imo) is to ban the G word in political discourse.
If we did that for a prolonged period we'd get better communications, better decisions, and in all probability more ... Growth.
We actually spend far too much political time and energy on the economy. We should switch to health, which would perversely be the best thing we can do for the economy anyway.
Moving politicians away from key areas is always a plus.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
I don't think any party can be honest with what needs to be done and still get elected frankly
the corollary to that is therefore democracy can no longer work as we can't fix the country while using it. I have an absolute preference for democracy however if it can't fix our current situation maybe for a time we need to fall back on something else. Just like in ww2, I don't think anyone wanted rationing but we needed to do it.
Here's the thing, though.
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
I don't think any party can be honest with what needs to be done and still get elected frankly
the corollary to that is therefore democracy can no longer work as we can't fix the country while using it. I have an absolute preference for democracy however if it can't fix our current situation maybe for a time we need to fall back on something else. Just like in ww2, I don't think anyone wanted rationing but we needed to do it.
Here's the thing, though.
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
No.
I'm not sure that's true.
Virtually every country in Latin America is now a democracy, apart from Venezuela and Cuba. That wasn't the case 50 years ago. Same goes for much of Africa and Asia.
That said I don't want to see democracy go. I suspect neither would @Pagan2 unless it was his dictatorship. I don't think he would like a left wing dictatorship like Stalins Communism either.
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
The worst ratings are for investment and HS2.....we may as well give up.
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
Rishi’s parting gift to his successors is his demonstration yesterday of what a passionate, effective speech as LOTO looks like. I’m not convinced either of them will clear the bar he has now set?
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Indeed, for my part I voted for Boris in 2019, Rishi last time and Jenrick this time.
If Kemi does win it will be only the second time the more moderate of the final 2 won the Tory leadership election with members.
The other was when Cameron beat Davis in 2005 (though before he won the backing of Francois and the ERG and jumped on the anti immigration bandwagon Jenrick had been a Cameroon) so it is a close call which of them is more centrist. Kemi opposing Jenrick's support for pulling out of the ECHR though and winning the backing of Osborne, Green, Hague and Gove makes her the more centrist of the two now
I dislike both Badenoch and Jenrick but will be happy to see the back of the latter. At least Badenoch might bring something different to the table , and as far as I know she hasn’t had murals painted over !
He might be back if Badenoch does badly at or before the next election - he is a young man still.
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
A massive win, though unlikely, may at least cause some state officials to not take concrete action to overturn the results in their state. If it is a nailbiter they will feel bolder, in arguing some minor (potential) incident somewhere justified throwing out millions of votes (a legal challenge actually suggested this in 2020). But either way there won't be acceptance on a mass level - just look at Trump, claiming he the only reason he will not win California is if there is fraud. If even a safe Democratic state could only be won by fraud, that means pretty much all are fraudulent. There's also been some clear cases of provocation designed to throw doubt on things in advance, so they can call foul with legal challenges being more prepared this time around.
But who knows, maybe Trump will just win legitimately so that won't matter so much.
I'm curious if Democrats will launch many legal challenges if they lose by small amounts. I think there will be some, the overuse by Trump and states and courts trying to lean on the scales have made it more acceptable as part of the culture, if not as much as Trump will. After all, the main problem with Trump's dozens of legal challenges were they were baseless, not every legal challenge is automatically so. Maybe it'll get settled by the SC!
The other question I have is whether Fox will be able to platform conspiracies and fraud accusations constantly like last time, but do it in a way which will not cost them hundreds of millions this time. Just be vaguer and not blame private companies perhaps.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
the amazing thing is, between Truman winning Arizona in 1948 and Biden (barely) winning it last time out the only democrat to win it was Bill Clinton in 1992 (with a little help from Ross Perot).
I have been following the US election quite closely and can not get over the fact that it will be decided in only 7 states. And effectively only one....whoever wins Pennsylvania should win the election. I think that Harris will win with around 290 seats...and that Trump will cry and squeal and issue every possible injunction he can think of...popcorn time
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
I don't think any party can be honest with what needs to be done and still get elected frankly
the corollary to that is therefore democracy can no longer work as we can't fix the country while using it. I have an absolute preference for democracy however if it can't fix our current situation maybe for a time we need to fall back on something else. Just like in ww2, I don't think anyone wanted rationing but we needed to do it.
Here's the thing, though.
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
No.
I'm not sure that's true.
Virtually every country in Latin America is now a democracy, apart from Venezuela and Cuba. That wasn't the case 50 years ago. Same goes for much of Africa and Asia.
It wasn't easy to get to that position though, and involved a lot of terrible stuff in the meantime. So we and others can backslide and still come back, but it's tough and uncertain. Hence needing to be more proactive against any potential threat to it.
Vance is on Rogan now. I haven’t got to any discussion on politics / policies yet. But he is very different to the “weird” tag that was placed on him. At a personal level, he’s likeable, self effacing, charming even. I still think it’s a mistake Kamala is not doing this show. It’s a soft ball fireside chat that makes you look human.
I have been following the US election quite closely and can not get over the fact that it will be decided in only 7 states. And effectively only one....whoever wins Pennsylvania should win the election. I think that Harris will win with around 290 seats...and that Trump will cry and squeal and issue every possible injunction he can think of...popcorn time
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do.
Eg this idea they can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banned from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Which bit are you disagreeing with?
a) The country is in a mess b) The country can't be fixed by parties that get elected for a five year term
I believe both a and b to be true
I'm saying it can't be fixed period. It's not that kind of thing. But, yes, our politics could be more honest and if it were that would help. But there's that electorate in the way. They don't reward honesty.
So you are saying the same...it can't be fixed by our current democratic set up....why are you disagreeing then?
Being "fixed" will mean different things to different people...
Trump following Rishi and targeting the Hindu vote and lauding Modi too (something even Tommy Robinson has done on the basis that Modi is nearly as anti Muslim as he is)
'@realDonaldTrump I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh, which remains in a total state of chaos.
It would have never happened on my watch. Kamala and Joe have ignored Hindus across the world and in America. They have been a disaster from Israel to Ukraine to our own Southern Border, but we will Make America Strong Again and bring back Peace through Strength!
We will also protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left. We will fight for your freedom. Under my administration, we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi.
Kamala Harris will destroy your small businesses with more regulations and higher taxes. By contrast, I cut taxes, cut regulations, unleashed American energy, and built the greatest economy in history. We will do it again, bigger and better than ever before—and we will Make America Great Again.
Given Musk is now screeching about FRAUD! on the 'For you' section of Twix; does anyone believe the Trumpites and GOPs will casually lie down and accept even a massive Dem/Harris win?
A massive win, though unlikely, may at least cause some state officials to not take concrete action to overturn the results in their state. If it is a nailbiter they will feel bolder, in arguing some minor (potential) incident somewhere justified throwing out millions of votes (a legal challenge actually suggested this in 2020). But either way there won't be acceptance on a mass level - just look at Trump, claiming he the only reason he will not win California is if there is fraud. If even a safe Democratic state could only be won by fraud, that means pretty much all are fraudulent. There's also been some clear cases of provocation designed to throw doubt on things in advance, so they can call foul with legal challenges being more prepared this time around.
But who knows, maybe Trump will just win legitimately so that won't matter so much.
I'm curious if Democrats will launch many legal challenges if they lose by small amounts. I think there will be some, the overuse by Trump and states and courts trying to lean on the scales have made it more acceptable as part of the culture, if not as much as Trump will. After all, the main problem with Trump's dozens of legal challenges were they were baseless, not every legal challenge is automatically so. Maybe it'll get settled by the SC!
The other question I have is whether Fox will be able to platform conspiracies and fraud accusations constantly like last time, but do it in a way which will not cost them hundreds of millions this time. Just be vaguer and not blame private companies perhaps.
I have been following the US election quite closely and can not get over the fact that it will be decided in only 7 states. And effectively only one....whoever wins Pennsylvania should win the election. I think that Harris will win with around 290 seats...and that Trump will cry and squeal and issue every possible injunction he can think of...popcorn time
I'll be too busy shitting myself to eat popcorn.
If Pennsylvania is the key (which is very possible) - rather than all or most of the swing states going one way - Harris will be lambasted over her choice of running mate, even if it would be impossible to prove that was decisive.
fpt Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I don't think to say we are a "mess" that can be "fixed" by politicians is the right framing. But we do have problems and I agree that our politics penalises being honest about what is and isn't realistic for governments to do. This is mainly the fault of the electorate.
Eg this idea that the government (Tory or Labour) can enact policies to transform our growth prospects relative to our peers. That's delusional. I'd like politicians to stop promising it. Banning them from even talking about growth would be ideal tbh.
Hm. I think I get where you're coming from. Growth can't be magicked out of nowhere simply by wanting it, just as you can't legislate for sunshine. But politicians can do a lot to inhibit growth. So by not doing those things, they can promote growth. Of course, some of those obviously growth-inhibiting things are things which on balance we might want to do anyway - like, for example, green belt protection.
Yes they can do things that damage growth. There's been a big one in recent times. But that wasn't their fault since it was directly mandated.
But my point is that "growth" has become a mantra and a tool for truth avoidance. We can grow at about average for the type of country we are and that's it.
"How will you fund these tax cuts?" Growth "
"What's paying for these spending increases?" "Extra growth."
"So which is it to be, tax rises or spending cuts," "That's a false choice. We need more growth."
Etc. I'd love to see the back of those sorts of exchanges and the best way to do that (imo) is to ban the G word in political discourse.
If we did that for a prolonged period we'd get better communications, better decisions, and in all probability more ... Growth.
What is also interesting is to see what politicians do when you start suggesting actual pro growth policies.
Their first instinct is no. Their second is “water it down”.
Vance is on Rogan now. I haven’t got to any discussion on politics / policies yet. But he is very different to the “weird” tag that was placed on him. At a personal level, he’s likeable, self effacing, charming even. I still think it’s a mistake Kamala is not doing this show. It’s a soft ball fireside chat that makes you look human.
The question is whether you trust Rogan to be fair.
Judging by the Yougov members poll I expect it to be close, indeed the closest Tory leadership result since members got the vote. That would also match by conversations with other members.
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
I have been following the US election quite closely and can not get over the fact that it will be decided in only 7 states. And effectively only one....whoever wins Pennsylvania should win the election. I think that Harris will win with around 290 seats...and that Trump will cry and squeal and issue every possible injunction he can think of...popcorn time
In theory, though if Harris wins North Carolina or Georgia or Trump wins Michigan or Wisconsin they don't need Pennsylvania
So I think of the card carrying pb blue lovelies, @Casino_Royale@TSE@MaxPB and yours truly have voted for Kemi while @HYUFD and @Mortimer backed Jenrick. And @MarqueeMark 'abstained'. Have I missed anyone?
The result will be announced at 11.00 am on Saturday.
Indeed, for my part I voted for Boris in 2019, Rishi last time and Jenrick this time.
If Kemi does win it will be only the second time the more moderate of the final 2 won the Tory leadership election with members.
The other was when Cameron beat Davis in 2005 (though before he won the backing of Francois and the ERG and jumped on the anti immigration bandwagon Jenrick had been a Cameroon) so it is a close call which of them is more centrist. Kemi opposing Jenrick's support for pulling out of the ECHR though and winning the backing of Osborne, Green, Hague and Gove makes her the more centrist of the two now
When one candidate is a swivel eyed Trumpite, anyone else would appear to be a moderate in comparison.
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
Colorado, California, New Mexico. This is worrying. Why is he campaigning in states that should be beyond him? What does he know that I don't?
Two possibilities.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
The other thing in Harris's favour is that the Electoral College swings more quickly towards her for a few percent of poll fail, in that Rep have quite a lot fewer ECVs at 99 / 90% secure than the Dems do, so the tip into landslide territory happens more quickly for Harris.
If she gets the votes......
I'd like to know why New Mexico is so Dem and Arizona is so GOP.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
the amazing thing is, between Truman winning Arizona in 1948 and Biden (barely) winning it last time out the only democrat to win it was Bill Clinton in 1992 (with a little help from Ross Perot).
Even Barry Goldwater won Arizona in 1964 despite losing 44 other states to LBJ. Arizona is very conservative economically if a bit more moderate socially
Comments
{{{Shower Curtain Rustles}}}
“In fire.”
{{{Shower Curtain Rustles}}}
Car deliveries halted amid fears motor finance scandal is ‘bigger than PPI’
Honda and BMW pause sales following shock ruling on salesmen commissions
Carmakers including Honda and BMW have temporarily halted sales to customers in recent days as the industry grapples with a motor finance scandal that lawyers have warned will be “bigger than PPI”.
Honda last weekend ordered showrooms not to deliver vehicles bought via financing deals following a shock court ruling on commissions paid to car salesmen.
BMW also told dealerships to pause, although both companies have since resumed deliveries using interim arrangements.
It comes after banks, car manufacturers and dealers flew into a panic on Friday when Court of Appeal judges ruled that commission fees added to financing deals – a standard arrangement used for decades – were in fact unlawful.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/31/car-deliveries-halted-amid-fears-motor-finance-scandal/
Before that, the only one who did so after 1804 was Martin Van Buuren.
So Harris would definitely be the exception, not the rule.
A few more have been candidates - Humphrey, Mondale, Gore - but it's not a great stepping stone electorally.
It does of course have the advantage for say, Vance (who'd surely never get there on his own) of being one heartbeat away. In this case, the old and decrepit heart of Donald Trump...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k_KgB9FyNU
Hispanics not Latinos. Pelosi insider trading. Clinton lied but Kamala lies more.
What about all the other sectors that use this model of financing, like white goods? Smaller amounts, but the volumes…
I can't get any discount when I buy a new car for cash against the finance price. And now the mugs who took finance are going to get oodles of compo to boot?
Am I the mug?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1851975451968671843
The current lot of problems probably requires a decade, but I think definitely possible a govt making progress wins re election, particularly if the opposition don't look much good.
Winning the House is more existential than winning the EC.
1. He knows things that we don't know. See Dave C campaigning in the south west in 2015.
2. He knows jack, but wants to give the image of winning bigly. Or his carers want to give him that image.
That California probably isn't even a stretch target makes me lean towards the latter.
(As for what I actually think... A poll fail in Harris's favour seems more plausible than one in Trump's direction. In a "ah, that's what happened" sense. See 2022 and younger females who don't want the state fiddling with their bits. Whereas a fail falling towards Trump, after two elections with him as the candidate, feels less explicable. But "Harris, more comfortably than we expect" is a bit too hopecasty for me to trust it.)
I do wonder what you eat? Because it will have had farming somewhere at the bottom of the supplier chain, however tossified the description of the honey roasted vegetable lasagne you subsist on is.
All this move will do is accelerate the move from small, independent farms to massive farms. And that'll be a loss, both to individuals and nature.
IT IS KNOWN
Was the official Wimpy from the cartoons?
Dem motivation, IMO, seems much likelier related to keeping Trump out again as they know do it one more time and he's done for.
I don't get the meltdown.
If the "small family farm" really is +£2m then
If the sons/daughters really want to be farmers then hand the farm on with plenty of time to use the 7 year rule which has stayed intact.
If she gets the votes......
Once you lose democracy it's very hard to get it back. And politicians - if they are no longer concerned that the electorate might kick them out - rarely become attuned to the needs and wants of the people.
Democracy can be wrong for long periods of time: it allowed a 98% tax rate at one point. But just a decade later Mrs Thatcher came to power.
Would it have been better to have had a military coup to stop the madness of close to 100% tax rates?
No.
Kamala HQ
@KamalaHQ
·
2h
Trump campaign surrogate Rudy Giuliani says immigrants “shouldn't have been taken out of the jungle”
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1852028947938017741
@Samfr
·
1h
I cannot emphasise enough that you cannot tell what's going on from early voting figures in the US. Historic attempts to use them to predict results have been hopeless inaccurate. It's not a representative sample.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
1h
The only minor exception is Nevada where nearly everyone votes early. And even then it can be misleading and v hard to intepret.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1852049233265988037
A mixed view of the policies but the tax rises (CGT excepted) are not popular and the 'good job/bad job' figures are pretty grim. Fair vs unfair is a dead heat which is pretty grim too before effects seen/reality sinks in
Badenoch should win though but will have to include other leadership contenders in her Shadow Cabinet
But my point is that "growth" has become a mantra and a tool for truth avoidance. We can grow at about average for the type of country we are and that's it.
"How will you fund these tax cuts?"
Growth "
"What's paying for these spending increases?"
"Extra growth."
"So which is it to be, tax rises or spending cuts,"
"That's a false choice. We need more growth."
Etc. I'd love to see the back of those sorts of exchanges and the best way to do that (imo) is to ban the G word in political discourse.
If we did that for a prolonged period we'd get better communications, better decisions, and in all probability more ... Growth.
The increased borrowing, HS2 extension, NI for employers' rise, inheritance tax extension and bus fare cap rise all have less than a third support. Even the CGT rise has just 39% in favour
He knows nothing that you don't.
In my ignorance they sound like very similar places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Hispanic_and_Latino_population
Virtually every country in Latin America is now a democracy, apart from Venezuela and Cuba. That wasn't the case 50 years ago. Same goes for much of Africa and Asia.
That said I don't want to see democracy go. I suspect neither would @Pagan2 unless it was his dictatorship. I don't think he would like a left wing dictatorship like Stalins Communism either.
If Kemi does win it will be only the second time the more moderate of the final 2 won the Tory leadership election with members.
The other was when Cameron beat Davis in 2005 (though before he won the backing of Francois and the ERG and jumped on the anti immigration bandwagon Jenrick had been a Cameroon) so it is a close call which of them is more centrist. Kemi opposing Jenrick's support for pulling out of the ECHR though and winning the backing of Osborne, Green, Hague and Gove makes her the more centrist of the two now
But who knows, maybe Trump will just win legitimately so that won't matter so much.
I'm curious if Democrats will launch many legal challenges if they lose by small amounts. I think there will be some, the overuse by Trump and states and courts trying to lean on the scales have made it more acceptable as part of the culture, if not as much as Trump will. After all, the main problem with Trump's dozens of legal challenges were they were baseless, not every legal challenge is automatically so. Maybe it'll get settled by the SC!
The other question I have is whether Fox will be able to platform conspiracies and fraud accusations constantly like last time, but do it in a way which will not cost them hundreds of millions this time. Just be vaguer and not blame private companies perhaps.
'@realDonaldTrump
I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh, which remains in a total state of chaos.
It would have never happened on my watch. Kamala and Joe have ignored Hindus across the world and in America. They have been a disaster from Israel to Ukraine to our own Southern Border, but we will Make America Strong Again and bring back Peace through Strength!
We will also protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left. We will fight for your freedom. Under my administration, we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi.
Kamala Harris will destroy your small businesses with more regulations and higher taxes. By contrast, I cut taxes, cut regulations, unleashed American energy, and built the greatest economy in history. We will do it again, bigger and better than ever before—and we will Make America Great Again.
Also, Happy Diwali to All. I hope the Festival of Lights leads to the Victory of Good over Evil!'
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1852033622494105832
If Pennsylvania is the key (which is very possible) - rather than all or most of the swing states going one way - Harris will be lambasted over her choice of running mate, even if it would be impossible to prove that was decisive.
Their first instinct is no. Their second is “water it down”.
IMV, the answer is no.