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.
WIth Vance I think it is more in what he says on policy that causes a reaction, rather than how he looks or sounds, generally. Indeed, in the Walz/Vance debate I think there was some criticism that Vance was able to make the Trumpian platform seem less out there than it was.
Trump on the other hand looks and sounds very odd, because he is a very unusual man, whether in a way people love or hate.
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 doubt Jenrick will get above 45%.
I think he will, I think if Badenoch wins it will be about the margin Yousaf beat Forbes by in the last contested SNP leadership election. It might even be as close as when Ed Miliband beat David Miliband for the Labour leadership in 2010
I don`t know why Jenrick is such long odds unless the bookies have inside knowledge.
They've met him?
He was on the telly at lunchtime and I had to turn it off. The guy is simply odious. The sort of bloke you'd avoid in an otherwise empty pub.
The fake accent is one of the more annoying aspects.
Kemi is crap and cowardly and weird but far less annoying than JENRICK. Given we'd have to put up with him on the telly for the next five two years, all those PB Tories who have cast their votes for Kemi are doing a public service.
But who will lead them into the next election? What are the odds on Boris?
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.
If Harris carries Pennsylvania then she carries Michigan and Wisconsin (probably some others too) and becomes president.
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories would have got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company. Remember David Miliband did not challenge Brown in 2009 but let him lead Labour to defeat in 2010 and actually won the Labour members' and MPs vote that year, only the support of trades unions scraped Ed Miliband over the line and they don't count in Tory leadership elections
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.
WIth Vance I think it is more in what he says on policy that causes a reaction, rather than how he looks or sounds, generally. Indeed, in the Walz/Vance debate I think there was some criticism that Vance was able to make the Trumpian platform seem less out there than it was.
Trump on the other hand looks and sounds very odd, because he is a very unusual man, whether in a way people love or hate.
Yeah Trump’s always been a weird dude hasnt he, going back to the 80s or 90s or whenever it was he first became a very high profile person. It’s almost been part of his unspoken appeal during his media career, that he’s an odd fish.
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
There are many permutations, certainly. I have Harris taking Pennslyvania/Wisconsin and Trump North Carolina/Georgia (plus Nevada).
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
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
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?
Nothing.
He knows nothing that you don't.
Trump I think now believes the EC is in the bag and wants to win the popular vote too, so he is appearing in California, Virginia, New York, Colorado, New Mexico etc rather than swing states alone.
However that risks him doing a Hillary given Harris and Walz and Obama are in swing state after swing state (albeit with 1 stop for Harris in Texas with Beyonce and her DC anti abortion speech)
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
Certainly afterwards there was, as we were sold the nonsense that Boris had wanted to do all sorts of things but mean old Rishi would not let him (I paraphrase), that's how Truss simultaneously ran on the platform that Boris was great and should not have been removed, but we should also do something completely different to Boris economically. But I do believe there is a kernel of truth there that he was going to replace Rishi, even if just as part of needing to repivot after earlier challenges and polling troubles - I don't buy that Rishi was an impossible blockage, but I can buy that as part of repositioning Boris would have found it easier with a new Chancellor.
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
It was his home state.
It was but Nixon had won it in 1960 when JFK won and Bush Snr also won it in 1992 despite losing by a landslide to Bill Clinton nationally and Ford also won it in 1976 despite losing to Carter.
Romney won it in 2012 as well even though it was not his home state like it was for McCain and Goldwater
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.
WIth Vance I think it is more in what he says on policy that causes a reaction, rather than how he looks or sounds, generally. Indeed, in the Walz/Vance debate I think there was some criticism that Vance was able to make the Trumpian platform seem less out there than it was.
Trump on the other hand looks and sounds very odd, because he is a very unusual man, whether in a way people love or hate.
Has anyone seen The Apprentice yet? A really fascinating film that avoids caricature or cliche and gets to the heart of what made Trump into the man he is today. A great psychological character study.
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.
If Harris carries Pennsylvania then she carries Michigan and Wisconsin (probably some others too) and becomes president.
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
It's Michigan I am currently seeing as the final piece of the puzzle, but frankly I'm not so solid on the Pennsylvania prediction anyway.
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.
Average farm 210 acres or so. Value of land alone: depends but maybe 2.4 million; add to that value of stock, ag buildings, farm cottages, machinery, which is quite a bit. Then take account of the value of the farm house (which is separate so liable for 40% if relevant as are of course any other assets like anyone else).
You are soon talking serious cash even with a 2 million disregard, particularly for larger farmers with top quality land in large quantities.
OTOH, to be balanced about this, the ag industry already gets colossal subsidy both overt and hidden as well as payment for ELMS - environmental land management.
Also OTOH the new IHT rules will be good for two mostly rural activities; lawyers and accountants who will be busy (including a number of people I know) working out schemes and wheezes; and an industry will come up lending the IHT money to farmers, with the farm as collateral, to pay up and keep going when they get caught by the rules.
Most will manage to avoid, using the old 7 year rule, splitting company shares/ownership several ways; and one or two other devices.
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
No not really, it was Boris who fast tracked Rishi to Chancellor
I think Badenoch is a flawed character, but she offers something different and she has a far better chance of "surprising on the upside" than Jenrick. She also has one of the most compelling interview manners for a politician for some time. Doesn't make a PM of course, but it does grab the attention.
Jenrick is... well, Jenrick. I can vaguely see how his Reform-lite shtick might appeal in some respects, but the more I see of him the more I just find him slimy (I thought some on here were over-egging it at first, but now I get it).
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company.
I’m not sure Boris would have kept Rishk as Chancellor for the full term would he? I’m scratching my memory banks now but wasn’t there a lot of noise at the time of his resignation that Boris was considering replacing him?
No not really, it was Boris who fast tracked Rishi to Chancellor
So all the anti-Rishi stuff afterwards from Borisians was lies in revenge for the ousting?
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?
Nothing.
He knows nothing that you don't.
Trump I think now believes the EC is in the bag and wants to win the popular vote too, so he is appearing in California, Virginia, New York, Colorado, New Mexico etc rather than swing states alone.
However that risks him doing a Hillary given Harris and Walz and Obama are in swing state after swing state (albeit with 1 stop for Harris in Texas with Beyonce and her DC anti abortion speech)
There is another interpretation. That he thinks he’s lost the EC and he’s going for the popular vote to muddy the waters.
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.
If Harris carries Pennsylvania then she carries Michigan and Wisconsin (probably some others too) and becomes president.
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
It's Michigan I am currently seeing as the final piece of the puzzle, but frankly I'm not so solid on the Pennsylvania prediction anyway.
I can't see a realistic path with Pennsylvania going one way and enough of the other swing states going the other. If Pennsylvania goes most of the other swing states will too.
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 doubt Jenrick will get above 45%.
I think he will, I think if Badenoch wins it will be about the margin Yousaf beat Forbes by in the last contested SNP leadership election. It might even be as close as when Ed Miliband beat David Miliband for the Labour leadership in 2010
I think Kamala Harris is outperforming Jenrick, in the key states.
Rachel Reeves is particularly popular in New England, but Kemi.Badenoch really fires up the crowds in huge libertarian rallies in Arizona.
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories would have got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company. Remember David Miliband did not challenge Brown in 2009 but let him lead Labour to defeat in 2010 and actually won the Labour members' and MPs vote that year, only the support of trades unions scraped Ed Miliband over the line and they don't count in Tory leadership elections
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?
Nothing.
He knows nothing that you don't.
Trump I think now believes the EC is in the bag and wants to win the popular vote too, so he is appearing in California, Virginia, New York, Colorado, New Mexico etc rather than swing states alone.
However that risks him doing a Hillary given Harris and Walz and Obama are in swing state after swing state (albeit with 1 stop for Harris in Texas with Beyonce and her DC anti abortion speech)
There is another interpretation. That he thinks he’s lost the EC and he’s going for the popular vote to muddy the waters.
Or he just has no real strategy? That seems the silliest idea, but crazier things have happened in campaigns. It may depend on how much he actually believes the things he says, and how much is just bluster, and how much his own whims are driving the campaign vs his handlers - if he really believes he is as popular as he claims to believe, then he would think every single state is in play and so why not focus in places that look out of play?
I think it may be in part a projection thing, he doesn't think he has lost (I'm convinced his brain will not allow him to accept defeat, hence his still refusing to admit it about 2020), but think he needs to appear strong, and campaigning in California and New York and saying they are in play looks strong and bolsters any waverers in his base, he hopes.
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?
Yes, if Rishi had a political brain not just an economic one he would not have tried to remove Boris but let him lead the party to defeat in July. However it would have been a narrower defeat and Reform would have got nowhere near 14% of the vote and the Tories would have got over 200 seats.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company. Remember David Miliband did not challenge Brown in 2009 but let him lead Labour to defeat in 2010 and actually won the Labour members' and MPs vote that year, only the support of trades unions scraped Ed Miliband over the line and they don't count in Tory leadership elections
Point of order
Johnson removed himself by his behaviour
That's why he was so vulnerable despite winning a landslide, but it's a turn of phrase not fact. Tory MPs had to show a bit of courage to remove him rather than let him cling on.
Most of them regretted it, but it made sense at the 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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
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.
If Harris carries Pennsylvania then she carries Michigan and Wisconsin (probably some others too) and becomes president.
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
It's Michigan I am currently seeing as the final piece of the puzzle, but frankly I'm not so solid on the Pennsylvania prediction anyway.
I can't see a realistic path with Pennsylvania going one way and enough of the other swing states going the other. If Pennsylvania goes most of the other swing states will too.
My reasoning is not very scientific, I just have a gut feeling one of the big ones is going to be an outlier even as the general trend in the swing states will go towards Trump. If two manage it, Harris can win.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Neither do I.
There have been much worse times even within my lifetime.
I think Badenoch is a flawed character, but she offers something different and she has a far better chance of "surprising on the upside" than Jenrick. She also has one of the most compelling interview manners for a politician for some time. Doesn't make a PM of course, but it does grab the attention.
Jenrick is... well, Jenrick. I can vaguely see how his Reform-lite shtick might appeal in some respects, but the more I see of him the more I just find him slimy (I thought some on here were over-egging it at first, but now I get it).
And she’s damn sexy. Though not the most important qualifier for high office.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
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?
Nothing.
He knows nothing that you don't.
Trump I think now believes the EC is in the bag and wants to win the popular vote too, so he is appearing in California, Virginia, New York, Colorado, New Mexico etc rather than swing states alone.
However that risks him doing a Hillary given Harris and Walz and Obama are in swing state after swing state (albeit with 1 stop for Harris in Texas with Beyonce and her DC anti abortion speech)
I think that Trump's motivation in almost everything is almost completely only two things - money and self-aggrandisement.
Keeping that in mind, I can explain his campaigning in populous non swing states because these are places with Trump supporters who haven't had a chance to see Trump on the campaign trail, while Trump supporters in the swing states are tapped out, and are not a good source of income or audience members for rallies.
You can't think about him as though he's a normal politician.
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.
If Harris carries Pennsylvania then she carries Michigan and Wisconsin (probably some others too) and becomes president.
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
It's Michigan I am currently seeing as the final piece of the puzzle, but frankly I'm not so solid on the Pennsylvania prediction anyway.
I can't see a realistic path with Pennsylvania going one way and enough of the other swing states going the other. If Pennsylvania goes most of the other swing states will too.
Well if it isn't close then for sure Pennsylvania will go to the winner along with the other swing states, but in this case no single individual state matters much.
But if it is close it's surely at least realistic (if not terribly likely) that eg Harris wins Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (or Michigan), and Trump wins the other swing states (with Nevada not mattering either way) and Trump wins without Pennsylvania.
Or Harris wins Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada plus either North Carolina or Georgia, she wins without Pennsylvania.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
Trump references Trump derangement syndrome and says that Harris has a major case of it.
'Trump derangement syndrome' refers to two things:
*) Those who believe Trump is he devil incarnate. *) Those who believe he is the second coming, despite everything he does.
As such, it is a fairly meaningless term.
Personally, I'd call Trump a low-life chancer, a man who abuses women and cares for no-one but himself.
You might class that as 'Trump derangement syndrome'. Personally, I'd say that's arguable, if not provable.
TDS isn’t just not likening someone, nor is it just thinking he is unpleasant and shouldn’t be president. It is an early onset type of madness. It’s describing him holding an event rally in a public event place well known for political rallies, a fascist it because seventy/eighty years ago some ten bob fascist held a rally there.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other 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.
Sometime I think that he actually believes this shite.
I think he genuinely believes a lot of nonsensical and contradictory things, but that one probably not as there's no way he wrote it - the phrasing, the punctuation, capitalisation, it doesn't look like one of his own comments at all. You can always tell the ones his campaign have written directly for him.
Trump references Trump derangement syndrome and says that Harris has a major case of it.
'Trump derangement syndrome' refers to two things:
*) Those who believe Trump is he devil incarnate. *) Those who believe he is the second coming, despite everything he does.
As such, it is a fairly meaningless term.
Personally, I'd call Trump a low-life chancer, a man who abuses women and cares for no-one but himself.
You might class that as 'Trump derangement syndrome'. Personally, I'd say that's arguable, if not provable.
TDS isn’t just not likening someone, nor is it just thinking he is unpleasant and shouldn’t be president. It is an early onset type of madness. It’s describing him holding an event rally in a public event place well known for political rallies, a fascist it because seventy/eighty years ago some ten bob fascist held a rally there.
You miss the point. That is one form of TDS. There's another form, where you ignore the mad shit he says, the fact he is a rapist and a criminal, for REASONS. That's madness as well.
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.
So, what happens if after the election it's said to be unlawful? Hard to prove it's effect, so presumably nothing. So that's a green light for this tactic.
Elon Musk can continue to give away cash to registered voters - for now, a Pennsylvania state judge has said.
The Donald Trump supporter has, through his political group America PAC, been offering cash prizes to registered voters in swing states who sign a petition - something US officials suggest may break electoral law. Musk denies this...
At a hearing on Thursday, Judge Angelo Foglietta said the lawsuit will be put on hold while a federal court decides whether to take up the case.
It is unlikely the case will be resolved before Tuesday's election.
Do we have any inklings, soundings or just gossip on who will be victorious? The obvious winner Kemi Badenoch or the grovelling cur Jenrick? Being even handed, of course
Where are the candidates would be an inkling. If one is spotted in Waitrose buying comfort food, whilst other surrounded by party officials at the venue with new security team in tow, it will be a giveaway.
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.
But how would you enforce that, even if you wanted to? I think it is entirely reasonable to want to see a pro-growth agenda. For me that is prioritising things which we know promotes growth (housing, energy, transport, education, tax cuts on jobs) over things which do not (pensions, tax cuts on IHT, health.) But for each of these there are solid democratic reasons for wanting to do the opposite. You allude to Brexit: for me, the #1 reason for Brexit was the democratic argument, which for me is more valuable than growth - however I am also of the unfashionable view that membership of the EU and its regulation-heavy framework was an inhibitor of growth, and Brexit was a necessary (though not sufficient) step in releasing the UK from this and thus enabling growth.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
You could do this but you'd need to argue for it for 5 years in opposition and get through your first term with an insane opposition so you could win a second term.
Thatcher got it done. But she could have failed at any time from 1975 to 1983.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I think thta part of the problem is that no one will believe any Government on this as long as they fail to deal with some of the more obvious fixes that might improve things at least a bit. Non Doms and Multinationals are the first that spring to mind. Saying we have to raise taxes on ordinary people - whether they are rich or poor - to pay for stuff whilst refusing to have an effective and fair taxation regime for multinationals just makes everyone think they are not really serious about this stuff. Failing to be honest about the demographic time bomb or admitting we need more immigration when every sane person knows this is the case just makes them all look dishonest.
No one will take any Government seriously as long as they attack straw men and ignore some of the more obvious solutions to at least some of our problems.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
You surprise me. The reason I say Britain is in a mess is that: Tax is at a record high. And yet the budget deficit is still large. And yet public services are not meeting demand. And the country has underinvested for decades. And the country is still selling assets to fund a current account deficit. So, fundamentally, the country is poorer than it has acted, but it can no longer borrow to pretend otherwise, and it spent the borrowed money on current spending and imports rather than investment in assets. So, in order to correct the situation the country not only has to cut consumption (either public or private or both) to get things into balance, but has to go further to be able to afford investment in order to be richer in the future to afford more good things eventually.
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.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
I think we are seeing the long term effects of both Social Media induced envy, and of Russian trolls all over the Internet and Social Media.
It's these trolls mission to trash talk and run down every comment board in every country, from both left and right. They know that their own country is shit, and want their people to believe every other country is shit too. That's the basic message of Russia Today. The pretence is that everywhere is shit, but at least Russia is honest about it.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
You surprise me. The reason I say Britain is in a mess is that: Tax is at a record high. And yet the budget deficit is still large. And yet public services are not meeting demand. And the country has underinvested for decades. And the country is still selling assets to fund a current account deficit. So, fundamentally, the country is poorer than it has acted, but it can no longer borrow to pretend otherwise, and it spent the borrowed money on current spending and imports rather than investment in assets. So, in order to correct the situation the country not only has to cut consumption (either public or private or both) to get things into balance, but has to go further to be able to afford investment in order to be richer in the future to afford more good things eventually.
What part of that is not a mess?
Yet, as I said, things still generally work.
And go back to any period in British history, and you can create a similar list of issues. They may be different issues, but they were issues nonetheless.
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.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
I think Covid (response to) is the source of a lot of decline, it seems to have made us all permanently poorer, the nhs was worshipped, large parts of it went into hibernation and found they could function much more smoothly by not seeing patients.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
There are objective metrics though that we can look at and see that the country is struggling in many ways. Hospital waiting lists for example are not simply a bad vibe, they're an objective measure of the health service not meeting demand. We see the same with the court system. Or with people unable to buy their own home.
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.
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.
My dad voted for Kemi too.
I voted for Kemi too, and I used to know her a bit before she was an MP. Though I think if Cleverley or Tugendhat had got through I would have voted for them. And I lost money on this election, I have locked in a small 4 figure red. Although I have done well out of betting on politics over the years I always seem to lose money betting on the leadership of my own party!
Minister for Women and Equalities 20/10/22 - 5/7/24
President of the Board of Trade 6/9/22 - 5/7//24
Secretary of State for International Trade 6/9/22
Secretary of State for Business and Trade 6/9/22 - 5/7/24
So she lazily did three jobs while in the Cabinet
She also lazily didn't interfere in a live legal enquiry that she was banned from interfering in
Lazy bitch, eh?
Holding positions doesn't prove whether she was lazy or not in any of them. I have no idea whether she was, I think it is nearly impossible for the public to be able to tell who was a good minister and who was a bad one.
Which is one reason it is so hard for us to predict who will be a good PM, and then half of them have no ministerial experience anyway.
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.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
I think we are seeing the long term effects of both Social Media induced envy, and of Russian trolls all over the Internet and Social Media.
It's these trolls mission to trash talk and run down every comment board in every country, from both left and right. They know that their own country is shit, and want their people to believe every other country is shit too. That's the basic message of Russia Today. The pretence is that everywhere is shit, but at least Russia is honest about it.
I think that gives too much power to social media trolling and divests people of agency. People's eyes and ears won't get fooled forever if it contradicts what they read.
It's why governments may not get punished by things like a brief technical recession, if the general person doesn't feel it to be very bad.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
There are objective metrics though that we can look at and see that the country is struggling in many ways. Hospital waiting lists for example are not simply a bad vibe, they're an objective measure of the health service not meeting demand. We see the same with the court system. Or with people unable to buy their own home.
There are vastly worse fates than ours. 150 years ago, at the summit of the British Empire, most people lived like the inhabitants of Eritrea, today.
And most people today would give everything to inhabit a rich world democracy line ours.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
Minister for Women and Equalities 20/10/22 - 5/7/24
President of the Board of Trade 6/9/22 - 5/7//24
Secretary of State for International Trade 6/9/22
Secretary of State for Business and Trade 6/9/22 - 5/7/24
So she lazily did three jobs while in the Cabinet
She also lazily didn't interfere in a live legal enquiry that she was banned from interfering in
Lazy bitch, eh?
I wouldn't describe her as lazy, as that does rather whiff of stereotypes of Africans.
But she does rather go missing at crucial moments, like a General Election.
I'm confused - even if she was lazy you wouldn't her describe as such, because of that whiff? Would using a synonym or saying she 'goes missing' be any better as a result?
I confess I wasn't aware that was an African stereotype anyway, I thought the stereotype was of the super hard working immigrant for low wages which the working man could not compete with.
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.
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.
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.
We're consistently behind a reasonably large group of North European nations, and Canada, on a multitude of indicators, which are likely to be interrelated.
Wages, inequality, corruption, media independence, public investment, and much more.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
The problem is the public sector exhibits a largely self-selecting bias towards slowness and inefficiency. The type of person who wants to increase efficiency in the ways you describe rarely gravitates towards the public sector. So how to encourage them, because they generally meet with the immovable monolith of existing culture within the public sector which becomes a force field of resistance to change.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
In other "Britain is a mess" news, one part of the Home Office doesn't accept documents issued by another part of the Home Office, fucking up the lives of people caught in the middle.
Interesting Martin Lewis show re. Budget on ITV right now.
Martin Lewis seemed a bit scathing she wouldn’t come on his show. Most powerful celebrity/influencer on finance in the country. Can’t work out if the budget has gone down well, my twitter following feed is largely livid. But it would be, and very bubble like. My gut feeling is “nhs ‘n’ minimum wage increase” will be the message of the budget.
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
The simplest way forward is also the least palatable.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
No, there are plenty of other ways forward.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
The problem is the public sector exhibits a largely self-selecting bias towards slowness and inefficiency. The type of person who wants to increase efficiency in the ways you describe rarely gravitates towards the public sector. So how to encourage them, because they generally meet with the immovable monolith of existing culture within the public sector which becomes a force field of resistance to change.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
Offer the right pay and motivation. If you like reforming organisations, large chunks of the public sector are pristine territory….
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
We all seem to agree that the country is a mess and we all seem to agree that fixing it won't be pleasant, but my sense is that most of the country only agree with the first part. They believe that there is a painless way to fix things by taxing the rich, or cracking down on layabouts, or some manner of deus ex machina.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
I don't think the country is a 'mess'; at least, not in a historical sense.
Perhaps, but we don't judge ourselves by our worst historical moments, even modern historial moments. We judge by our neighbours, what we feel we deserve, and how things generally feel in our guts.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
The thing is, my impression of our neighbours is that they feel the same way. Everything's shit if you listen to the French and the Germans.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
There are objective metrics though that we can look at and see that the country is struggling in many ways. Hospital waiting lists for example are not simply a bad vibe, they're an objective measure of the health service not meeting demand. We see the same with the court system. Or with people unable to buy their own home.
There are vastly worse fates than ours. 150 years ago, at the summit of the British Empire, most people lived like the inhabitants of Eritrea, today.
And most people today would give everything to inhabit a rich world democracy line ours.
I'm not sure life in the UK got materially comfortable until the 1960s/1970s, notwithstanding the atrocious politics.
Comments
Trump on the other hand looks and sounds very odd, because he is a very unusual man, whether in a way people love or hate.
Are you fooled ?
If Trump carries Pennsylvania he'll win enough of the sun-belt states to become president. Harris would need to win Nevada and one of North Carolina or Georgia (which I'd doubt)
Offer Northern Ireland and it's too obvious.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Leader of the Opposition to an already unpopular Labour government instead of his political career being cut short after he led the party to landslide defeat and trying to get on the board of some Silicon Valley Tech Company. Remember David Miliband did not challenge Brown in 2009 but let him lead Labour to defeat in 2010 and actually won the Labour members' and MPs vote that year, only the support of trades unions scraped Ed Miliband over the line and they don't count in Tory leadership elections
*) Those who believe Trump is he devil incarnate.
*) Those who believe he is the second coming, despite everything he does.
As such, it is a fairly meaningless term.
Personally, I'd call Trump a low-life chancer, a man who abuses women and cares for no-one but himself.
You might class that as 'Trump derangement syndrome'. Personally, I'd say that's arguable, if not provable.
However that risks him doing a Hillary given Harris and Walz and Obama are in swing state after swing state (albeit with 1 stop for Harris in Texas with Beyonce and her DC anti abortion speech)
Romney won it in 2012 as well even though it was not his home state like it was for McCain and Goldwater
Jeremy Strong as Roy Cohn is excellent, too.
You are soon talking serious cash even with a 2 million disregard, particularly for larger farmers with top quality land in large quantities.
OTOH, to be balanced about this, the ag industry already gets colossal subsidy both overt and hidden as well as payment for ELMS - environmental land management.
Also OTOH the new IHT rules will be good for two mostly rural activities; lawyers and accountants who will be busy (including a number of people I know) working out schemes and wheezes; and an industry will come up lending the IHT money to farmers, with the farm as collateral, to pay up and keep going when they get caught by the rules.
Most will manage to avoid, using the old 7 year rule, splitting company shares/ownership several ways; and one or two other devices.
Jenrick is... well, Jenrick. I can vaguely see how his Reform-lite shtick might appeal in some respects, but the more I see of him the more I just find him slimy (I thought some on here were over-egging it at first, but now I get it).
Rachel Reeves is particularly popular in New England, but Kemi.Badenoch really fires up the crowds in huge libertarian rallies in Arizona.
Johnson removed himself by his behaviour
I think it may be in part a projection thing, he doesn't think he has lost (I'm convinced his brain will not allow him to accept defeat, hence his still refusing to admit it about 2020), but think he needs to appear strong, and campaigning in California and New York and saying they are in play looks strong and bolsters any waverers in his base, he hopes.
Most of them regretted it, but it made sense at the time.
The reason people believe this is partly denial and partly because the politicians don't tell them any different.
Perhaps I'm a naive idealist, but I think that if a major party leader was relentlessly honest about the financial mess the country is in, and the long-term failures that have put it there, that there's a chance they could convince enough voters that fixing it was going to involve unpleasantness (i.e. spending cuts on things people want spending on and/or tax rises that they pay), and any politician saying otherwise was lying to them.
There have been much worse times even within my lifetime.
I'm an optimist in global terms, life for the majority is better than most other points of history, but for the UK everything just seems kind of low grade crappy. Does anything work properly, or get done swiftly anymore? Surely yes, but a lot does not.
Keeping that in mind, I can explain his campaigning in populous non swing states because these are places with Trump supporters who haven't had a chance to see Trump on the campaign trail, while Trump supporters in the swing states are tapped out, and are not a good source of income or audience members for rallies.
You can't think about him as though he's a normal politician.
But if it is close it's surely at least realistic (if not terribly likely) that eg Harris wins Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (or Michigan), and Trump wins the other swing states (with Nevada not mattering either way) and Trump wins without Pennsylvania.
Or Harris wins Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada plus either North Carolina or Georgia, she wins without Pennsylvania.
Income tax up by 2p in the pound, coupled with swingeing cuts to the welfare state.
Pay down debt, offer tax breaks to entrepreneurs and encourage the knowledge economy, offer tax breaks to billionaires and non dom types to move here rather than move away. Better to get a small amount of something than a lot of nothing, as Reeves seems to have chosen.
Grasp the nettle of the housing crisis with policies that screw over nimbies and build, build, build. Social care reform. End the triple lock, means tested support for pensioners who need it, the rest need to accept being a bit poorer, like the rest of us, as the economy resets.
Everything I have mentioned is electorally toxic, of course. But it's the only way forward.
The vast majority of stuff works. We turn on a tap; we get water. Our 'leccy and gas works. Our Internet works Even the NHS 'works' the majority of the time.
We do not think of the times when things just work. But we complain and remember when things fail: and because of modern communications, we hear about when they fail for other people.
Elon Musk can continue to give away cash to registered voters - for now, a Pennsylvania state judge has said.
The Donald Trump supporter has, through his political group America PAC, been offering cash prizes to registered voters in swing states who sign a petition - something US officials suggest may break electoral law. Musk denies this...
At a hearing on Thursday, Judge Angelo Foglietta said the lawsuit will be put on hold while a federal court decides whether to take up the case.
It is unlikely the case will be resolved before Tuesday's election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0en401330jo
I think it is entirely reasonable to want to see a pro-growth agenda. For me that is prioritising things which we know promotes growth (housing, energy, transport, education, tax cuts on jobs) over things which do not (pensions, tax cuts on IHT, health.) But for each of these there are solid democratic reasons for wanting to do the opposite.
You allude to Brexit: for me, the #1 reason for Brexit was the democratic argument, which for me is more valuable than growth - however I am also of the unfashionable view that membership of the EU and its regulation-heavy framework was an inhibitor of growth, and Brexit was a necessary (though not sufficient) step in releasing the UK from this and thus enabling growth.
Thatcher got it done. But she could have failed at any time from 1975 to 1983.
Who's next?
No one will take any Government seriously as long as they attack straw men and ignore some of the more obvious solutions to at least some of our problems.
Tax is at a record high.
And yet the budget deficit is still large.
And yet public services are not meeting demand.
And the country has underinvested for decades.
And the country is still selling assets to fund a current account deficit.
So, fundamentally, the country is poorer than it has acted, but it can no longer borrow to pretend otherwise, and it spent the borrowed money on current spending and imports rather than investment in assets.
So, in order to correct the situation the country not only has to cut consumption (either public or private or both) to get things into balance, but has to go further to be able to afford investment in order to be richer in the future to afford more good things eventually.
What part of that is not a mess?
It's these trolls mission to trash talk and run down every comment board in every country, from both left and right. They know that their own country is shit, and want their people to believe every other country is shit too. That's the basic message of Russia Today. The pretence is that everywhere is shit, but at least Russia is honest about it.
And go back to any period in British history, and you can create a similar list of issues. They may be different issues, but they were issues nonetheless.
I just don't buy that she's a big drag in the way that Ms Clinton was in 2016.
Minister for Women and Equalities 20/10/22 - 5/7/24
President of the Board of Trade 6/9/22 - 5/7//24
Secretary of State for International Trade 6/9/22 - 7/2/23
Secretary of State for Business and Trade 7/2/23 - 5/7/24
So she lazily did three jobs while in the Cabinet
She also lazily didn't interfere in a live legal enquiry that she was banned from interfering in
Lazy bitch, eh?
Discuss
Which is one reason it is so hard for us to predict who will be a good PM, and then half of them have no ministerial experience anyway.
But she does rather go missing at crucial moments, like a General Election.
It's why governments may not get punished by things like a brief technical recession, if the general person doesn't feel it to be very bad.
And most people today would give everything to inhabit a rich world democracy line ours.
For example, install *inside the various government department* units tasked with IT renewal, process reduction, data science etc. Give them massive political support and set them to work.
It can be done - see the private sector.
I confess I wasn't aware that was an African stereotype anyway, I thought the stereotype was of the super hard working immigrant for low wages which the working man could not compete with.
I mean they are surprisingly open about what they want to do.
We're consistently behind a reasonably large group of North European nations, and Canada, on a multitude of indicators, which are likely to be interrelated.
Wages, inequality, corruption, media independence, public investment, and much more.
Privatising vast swathes of the public sector is an option, but, again, electorally toxic...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/31/eu-citizen-who-applied-for-pre-settled-status-set-to-be-deported-from-scotland
That makes her an opportunist, but not necessarily a bad politician.
Pleasing to see that they since have been.
Can’t work out if the budget has gone down well, my twitter following feed is largely livid. But it would be, and very bubble like.
My gut feeling is “nhs ‘n’ minimum wage increase” will be the message of the budget.