Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The new divides – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited November 20 in General
The new divides – politicalbetting.com

We're getting our first @YouGovAmerica snap polls back with reactions to the election, and these demographic splits really tell a story: https://t.co/ATPGMbq2p5 pic.twitter.com/4uVeWPc8PC

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    First !!!!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    1st. Like orange war paint.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    4th, one better than Arsenal
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    For anyone who missed it, the failure of Germany's Coalition means that there's to be a confidence vote early next year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    edited November 7
    FPT for @Cookie
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032

    For anyone who missed it, the failure of Germany's Coalition means that there's to be a confidence vote early next year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo

    Oh good the Russian asset Scholz will be booted.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    edited November 7
    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420

    For anyone who missed it, the failure of Germany's Coalition means that there's to be a confidence vote early next year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo

    It seems quite slow...? Why not have a confidence vote this month?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    Quite interesting, first I'd heard of the neighbour effect. Fair play to the Frenchman, a cunning plan, carefully executed.

    https://x.com/blader/status/1854366739511030065
  • Trump in landslide. Some upset shock.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    The first thing that I find interesting in the data, is the stability of Trump enthusiasm, across the age ranges, if you look at Happy + Thrilled.

    This isn't old, angry, white guys on porches.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    I disagree entirely with TSE. What's stark is how consistent Trump support is across demographics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,405

    For anyone who missed it, the failure of Germany's Coalition means that there's to be a confidence vote early next year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo

    It seems quite slow...? Why not have a confidence vote this month?
    European governments don't like to rush their collapses.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. Eabhal, but is the consistent Trump support across demographics a reaction against Harris/the Democrats or *for* Trump?

    If the Democrats put forward someone more intriguing and the Republicans find a genuine Heir to Trump next time, the answer to that question may determine the electoral result.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    That 18 to 29 year old men category and I’ve noticed this with even kids of parents I know here .

    Whether we like to accept it or not , the view that women are too powerful now and men feel de-masculated is out there .
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).

    From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.

    Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,609
    edited November 7
    Good morning

    A momentous day yesterday when the world looked on in astonishment as Trump won a spectacular victory with untold consequences

    Maybe it was a case, similar to Brexit, where ordinary people decided they had had enough and voted accordingly

    Starmer is trying to put on a brave face but if he turns and looks at his back benches they are seething and rocky times loom ahead

    My worry is Reeves has staked everything on the NHS, borrowed and taxed to the limit, and is now facing untold problems with defence spending, tariffs, and an inward looking US with nothing left in the fuel tank. To be fair she looked extremely worried at PMQs

    The other problem for Starmer is the profile of Farage, 'grinning like a Cheshire cat' and who poses are real threat to Labour and the conservatives

    Interesting days

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521
    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Ballot initiatives mean that you can vote to keep abortion *and* vote Trump.

    The Republicans are interested in recruiting new supporters, whereas the Conservatives focused on keeping existing supporters happy.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
  • algarkirk said:

    4th, one better than Arsenal

    There's a big gap now between Arsenal and the top two, in fact there is a Forest between them.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    edited November 7

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Pulpstar said:

    For anyone who missed it, the failure of Germany's Coalition means that there's to be a confidence vote early next year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3r046pzzo

    It seems quite slow...? Why not have a confidence vote this month?
    European governments don't like to rush their collapses.
    Indeed, can’t they be done with him now and get someone else in before Christmas? Preferably someone who cares about security.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 620

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    They don't want crypto regulated, how dare the state interfere with most of them losing all their savings...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    nico679 said:

    That 18 to 29 year old men category and I’ve noticed this with even kids of parents I know here .

    Whether we like to accept it or not , the view that women are too powerful now and men feel de-masculated is out there .

    GenZ (especially men) are moving to the right and even the far-right. Identity politics is responsible for this.

    Liberal overreach (and shit like you can't be "too Woke"; yes, I'm thinking of you Sandy Toskvig) might eventually end up reversing some of the liberal gains from the post 1960s that we'd hitherto all been totally aligned upon.

    Well done. No, really: WELL DONE.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    Good morning

    A momentous day yesterday when the world looked on in astonishment as Trump won a spectacular victory with untold consequences

    Maybe it was a case, similar to Brexit, where ordinary people decided they had had enough and voted accordingly

    Starmer is trying to put on a brave face but if he turns and looks at his back benches they are seething and rocky times loom ahead

    My worry is Reeves has staked everything on the NHS, borrowed and taxed to the limit, and is now facing untold problems with defence spending, tariffs, and an inward looking US with nothing left in the fuel tank. To be fair she looked extremely worried at PMQs

    The other problem for Starmer is the profile of Farage, 'grinning like a Cheshire cat' and who poses are real threat to Labour and the conservatives

    Interesting days

    Farage is a bigger threat to the Tories than Labour - while I can see Reform picking up votes and seats from Labour the consequence of that will be to make the Tories the third party in those areas...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,780

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    Labour could announce it as reversing the 'Conservative cuts':

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/298490/defense-spending-united-kingdom-uk/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    No they won’t. And what’s more this will get WORSE for the left as young women follow young men in moving to the right

    Who benefits from lots of frustrated young male migrants flooding our cities? It’s not young women is it? Look at the appalling rape statistics in Sweden and Denmark
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    But this shows that the difference between men and women isn't as stark as you'd expect. That points to economics, not wokery.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    I have a weekend piece on this very subject.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857

    Quite interesting, first I'd heard of the neighbour effect. Fair play to the Frenchman, a cunning plan, carefully executed.

    https://x.com/blader/status/1854366739511030065

    Seems to me a genuine and useful insight. In betting terms in looking for value you can even try to do the exercise in your head to see if you think the data is on the wrong track. Eg might it have been helpful in the last GE in working out that the Tories would overperform and Labour underperform the polling. Ditto the EU referendum.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    nico679 said:

    That 18 to 29 year old men category and I’ve noticed this with even kids of parents I know here .

    Whether we like to accept it or not , the view that women are too powerful now and men feel de-masculated is out there .

    GenZ (especially men) are moving to the right and even the far-right. Identity politics is responsible for this.

    Liberal overreach (and shit like you can't be "too Woke"; yes, I'm thinking of you Sandy Toskvig) might eventually end up reversing some of the liberal gains from the post 1960s that we'd hitherto all been totally aligned upon.

    Well done. No, really: WELL DONE.
    Every revolution devours its children. Even, in the end, the sexual revolution
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    The thing that is absurd is that every farmer will now get into the kind of tax avoiding estates planning that the Labour Party hates. So every farmer will be spending thousands of pounds to kinda of return the situation to what it was before - plus inconvenience.

    So productivity in agriculture just went down. Yay.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,268
    The Trump whale commissioned his own private polls asking people how they thought their neighbours would vote:

    https://www.wsj.com/finance/how-the-trump-whale-correctly-called-the-election-cb7eef1d
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    Labour are going to be utterly destroyed by migration, Trump, and an imploding economy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    The last few days of the Twitter campaign, with quite the parade of young lady Republican activists telling the young men to all go out and vote, was fun to watch!
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    edited November 7
    ..
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 620

    The first thing that I find interesting in the data, is the stability of Trump enthusiasm, across the age ranges, if you look at Happy + Thrilled.

    This isn't old, angry, white guys on porches.

    The graphic on twitter shows the splits with age+gender, I was going to post a similar comment to yours having looked at the website.

    In the twitter graphic 18-29 Thrilled+Happy is 60%/37% male/female and 65+ 55%/42%, from 30-65 there's only 2-3% difference.
    So it is young men and old men.
    The website also shows a racial divide, white T+H, hispanic slightly T+H, black D+D.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 620
    Leon said:

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    No they won’t. And what’s more this will get WORSE for the left as young women follow young men in moving to the right

    Who benefits from lots of frustrated young male migrants flooding our cities? It’s not young women is it? Look at the appalling rape statistics in Sweden and Denmark
    Crikey! A pack of dogs has just rushed past the house on the way to N London....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
    It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited November 7

    Trump in landslide. Some upset shock.

    I wouldn't call it a "landslide". The final share of the vote might be 51:48.

    It was fairly efficiently distributed in a 50:50 country, but even Kamala, a dire token candidate anointed by the party machine, still won more than 200 EC votes. Republicans shouldn't get carried away. I can see people getting pretty sick of endless incompetence, psychodramas and megalomania over the next couple of years, and Trump is now a lame duck who can't run again and therefore may find it difficult to control his party especially in Congress and the states as those under him jockey for succession.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954

    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.

    24 hours on that's what I've been thinking about. A lot of assumptions about trade have surely now got to be binned. As well as sharply increasing defence spending, which I already thought was necessary, we now face all kinds of disruptive tariffs, corporation tax competition, and so on. I can't see how the UK government can avoid reevaluating their plans immediately.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,942
    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
    So abortion simply wasn't a major issue during this election. If that's the case, it was a huge misstep from the Democrats focusing on it so much.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    Dopermean said:

    Leon said:

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    No they won’t. And what’s more this will get WORSE for the left as young women follow young men in moving to the right

    Who benefits from lots of frustrated young male migrants flooding our cities? It’s not young women is it? Look at the appalling rape statistics in Sweden and Denmark
    Crikey! A pack of dogs has just rushed past the house on the way to N London....
    Eh?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
    It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away
    See also other issues.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,089
    edited November 7
    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Fishing said:

    Trump in landslide. Some upset shock.

    I wouldn't call it a "landslide". The final share of the vote might be 51:48.

    It was fairly efficiently distributed in a 50:50 country, but even Kamala, a dire token candidate anointed by the party machine, still won more than 200 EC votes. Republicans shouldn't get carried away. I can see people getting pretty sick of endless incompetence, psychodramas and megalomania over the next couple of years, and Trump is now a lame duck who can't run again and therefore may find it difficult to control his party especially in Congress and the states as those under him jockey for succession.
    The following might be of interest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
    It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away
    Yes, I'd guess on a personal level he's probably in favour but ultimately just wants it to not be his problem as POTUS. Handing it to the states has done this and the pro-lifers having got what they wanted have no one to be angry at when they continually lose at the ballot box on pro-choice initiatives.

    Within 6 years I think all but a small handful of states will have legalised abortion up to 26 weeks or something similar. When 55-60% of voters want something, politicians will have to bend to their will.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    The thing that is absurd is that every farmer will now get into the kind of tax avoiding estates planning that the Labour Party hates. So every farmer will be spending thousands of pounds to kinda of return the situation to what it was before - plus inconvenience.

    So productivity in agriculture just went down. Yay.
    TBF the planning required is what loads of people have to do already, farmers already have to deal with accountants and lawyers over a number of matters, including wills, probate, planning ahead, succession, leases, tax, grants, conveyancing et al. The rural world has a substantial, and usually highly regarded, professional class who deal bigly with farming and ancillary industries and many of them are small and medium size firms. A number are sons and daughters of farmers. I am surrounded by them, including within my own wider family.

    The big problem is the very old farmer who won't live 7 years and relied, reasonably, on the present law WRT IHT. This needs attention in the legislation.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    Leon said:

    Labour are going to be utterly destroyed by migration, Trump, and an imploding economy

    Number one thing Starmer should do is hot foot it to Washington DC. Kiss Trump's ass, praise him, big-up his ideas that we find acceptable, agree that China is the main threat, but absolutely glue Putin and Xi together. "Mr. President, you were first to warn about the threat of China, and wisely so, but did you know how closely Russia and China are working together?"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    The relative indifference of younger women in that poll, compared to their older counterparts, is an important clue as to where the Dems may have underperformed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    By the way, who now thinks that Musk’s purchase of TwiX was a “really bad idea”

    It is extremely likely that TwiX being owned by a right wing free speech advocate is what turned the election for Trump

    So musk bought his chosen flavour of President, of the most powerful nation on earth, for $44 billion, meaning he will now make hundreds of billions as Trump showers him with contracts out of gratitude

    That stupid Elon eh. Just a twit who inherited an emerald mine
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,405
    edited November 7
    The presidency and senate might have settled quickly this time round but looking at where the remaining house races are, how close they are and how close the likely house is the house race will probably drag on till christmas lol. I mean the Republicans are heavily favoured to get a majority (A very small one) but christ talk about slow counting.
  • Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...

    But Trump is actually appealing to these people. The Tories are not making any effort whatsoever.

    It’s a false comparison. I have said continuously if you appeal to people like me they will vote for you. But you aren’t.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    I always come up with a list which will save about £40-60 billion/year including ending Net Zero, foreign aid, HS2, aid to Northern Ireland and farming subsidies, and that's without breaking any sweat at all.

    Until recently I worked in a public sector bureaucracy and I know there's loads of fat in public sector numbers if not staff costs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?

    The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?

    Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.

    On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
    On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.

    And thanks for that on wages.
    They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
    It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away
    See also other issues.
    Indeed. The idea Trump has clear ideological positions is silly. He does what’s best for him and what makes him look good. Getting “good deals” for America turns him on. Socially he’s probably still the vague New York liberal he was 20 years ago - he just hides it coz it suits him
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    Leon said:

    It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away

    I'm 99% certain that Trump personally is keen for abortion to still be easily accessible. He's likely paid for many over the years.
  • Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    I always come up with a list which will save about £40-60 billion/year including ending Net Zero, foreign aid, HS2, aid to Northern Ireland and farming subsidies, and that's without breaking any sweat at all.

    Until recently I worked in a public sector bureaucracy and I know there's loads of fat in public sector numbers if not staff costs.
    HS2 - are you mad, seriously?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    Leon said:

    By the way, who now thinks that Musk’s purchase of TwiX was a “really bad idea”

    It is extremely likely that TwiX being owned by a right wing free speech advocate is what turned the election for Trump

    So musk bought his chosen flavour of President, of the most powerful nation on earth, for $44 billion, meaning he will now make hundreds of billions as Trump showers him with contracts out of gratitude

    That stupid Elon eh. Just a twit who inherited an emerald mine

    Mate, he's not going to shag you.
    Though the evidence suggests he doesn't shag anyone.
    Ok.
    Mate, he's not going to sperm donor you.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,984
    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    Of course, trying to define the "bloated, pampered public sector" is where most of those hostile to it go wrong.

    Theoretically, the armed forces, funded by the State, are part of the "bloated pampered public sector" so we end up with the tautology of wanting to cut public sector spending to increase public sector spending.

    As a brave man once said, "let's get serious".

    Local Government has lost a million jobs in the last decade - Councils of all particular stripes and none are on the cusp of bankruptcy. Some on here want to cut the civil service establishment (about half a million) by 50-90% (apart from those Conservativrds who want to throw civil servants in jail).

    Let's get serious.

    If you're griping about £10-£20 billion fine, gripe, but in the scheme of things, it's back of the sofa money. The Government spends just over £1,000 billion and still has a deficit of £130 billion (if you base that solely on what it spends versus what it gets in).

    It's never just spending cuts or tax rises - it's a judicious mix of both. I thought Hunt's cutting of NI before the election absurd and unjustified but it was political and salting the earth for the new Government Ken Clarke, against whom Hunt is an irrelevance, didn't pander to the backbenches and cut taxes because he saw the bigger picture - handing the public finances and the economy on to the next Government in the best possible shape was his public duty.

    Has Reeves got it right? Not really - she was far too timid in the Budget. If you want to get the deficit down and borrowing under control, then you have to be "tough". She should have raised Gambling Duty for example. The party's over - that same post-Covid splurge which killed off so many Governments round the world. Everyone who ends up paying more tax complains - human nature - but ultimately arguing that "someone else" (the wealthy, the public sector) has to do all the heavy lifting while you sail on unaffected isn't practical.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,089
    edited November 7
    Musk has destroyed Twitter.

    From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…

    If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Leon said:

    By the way, who now thinks that Musk’s purchase of TwiX was a “really bad idea”

    It is extremely likely that TwiX being owned by a right wing free speech advocate is what turned the election for Trump

    So musk bought his chosen flavour of President, of the most powerful nation on earth, for $44 billion, meaning he will now make hundreds of billions as Trump showers him with contracts out of gratitude

    That stupid Elon eh. Just a twit who inherited an emerald mine

    Well he definitely made the FAA bureaucracy for SpaceX a whole lot easier to navigate.

    I can see three major reasons why the election went the way it did.

    1. Media landscape change. TL:DR long-form podcasts rather than MSM interviews.
    2. Social media change. TL:DR Musk buying Twitter and firing the moderators.
    3. A gentleman by the name of Scott Presler, who led the Republican ground game in the swing states.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    By the way, who now thinks that Musk’s purchase of TwiX was a “really bad idea”

    It is extremely likely that TwiX being owned by a right wing free speech advocate is what turned the election for Trump

    So musk bought his chosen flavour of President, of the most powerful nation on earth, for $44 billion, meaning he will now make hundreds of billions as Trump showers him with contracts out of gratitude

    That stupid Elon eh. Just a twit who inherited an emerald mine

    Mate, he's not going to shag you.
    Though the evidence suggests he doesn't shag anyone.
    Ok.
    Mate, he's not going to sperm donor you.
    Buying TwiX now looks like an act of staggering genius. He won the election for Trump and now he will reap the ginormous benefits
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,609
    edited November 7

    Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...

    But Trump is actually appealing to these people. The Tories are not making any effort whatsoever.

    It’s a false comparison. I have said continuously if you appeal to people like me they will vote for you. But you aren’t.
    It will be interesting if Badenoch does turn her attention to the younger vote and indeed abandons the triple lock to something like inflation plus 1%

    These are early days but I do share your hope for more youth and young policies

    Also on a subject you are versed in, report today at just how bad 5G is across the country and in Mostyn Street in Llandudno ( the main street) Internet access within the shops is virtually zero
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    IanB2 said:

    The relative indifference of younger women in that poll, compared to their older counterparts, is an important clue as to where the Dems may have underperformed.

    The (not so) Swift effect?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    edited November 7

    Musk has destroyed Twitter.

    From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, Tweets have nothing to do with the post above.

    If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.

    The latest glitch/dumb promotion is that paid ad tweets drop down to partly cover the entirely unconnected tweet below.

    Edit: seems to have stopped doing it now so I'm going for glitch.
  • MaxPB said:

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
    The thing is, what do you do about that? What’s your solution?

    I think there’s an element of what you are saying. But I still think the unifier is the economy. Young people are not immune to this.

    As I keep saying, if the Tories offer something on the economy and don’t overdo the “anti w” stuff which really does turn people off (Trump has found a balance here somehow, to his credit), young people will vote for them. That should be a big worry for SKS.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,355
    edited November 7
    Odd reading of the chart to suggest that young men are more thrilled or happy with Trump's victory.

    Marginally true if you add both together, however only just marginally true compared to old men, and breaking it down further tilts it much more towards old men being the happiest at the result.

    Only 18% of young men are thrilled with his victory compared with 40% of old men. Which doesn't match the meme of young males being passionate Trump supporters, it seems like old men are the more passionate ones.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...

    But Trump is actually appealing to these people. The Tories are not making any effort whatsoever.

    It’s a false comparison. I have said continuously if you appeal to people like me they will vote for you. But you aren’t.
    It will be interesting if Badenoch does turn her attention to the younger vote and indeed abandons the triple lock to something like inflation plus 1%

    These are early days but I do share your hope for more youth and young policies

    Also on a subject you are versed in, report today at just how bad 5G is across the country and in Mostyn Street in Llandudno ( the main street) Internet access within the shops is virtually zero
    Quadruple lock - the ceiling for the state pension is the Income Tax personal allowance.

    You heard it here, first.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where
    money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    Because - with all due respect - it’s a stupid question.

    Government is made up of hundreds and thousands of line items of spending. The reality is that there is waste in there - defunct programmes that stagger on, the crud that builds up around any organisation, whatever. Without access to that data it’s impossible so say “cut X or Y” in any meaningful way.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    edited November 7
    Interesting comment on the Dem post-mortem from pro poker player Daniel Negreanu, which sums things up quite well.

    https://x.com/realkidpoker/status/1854282870594142327

    You conspired to block Bernie.

    You discarded and defamed @TulsiGabbard

    You didn’t invite @elonmusk to a summit on electric vehicles?

    You blocked @RobertKennedyJr and others from having any path to make their cause in a primary.

    You embraced wokeism and identity politics, demonizing the evil, white cisgender male population, extra scorn for those who have attained financial wealth.

    You further insult them by telling them that they didn’t vote for Kamala because they are racist and mysogonist.

    You then anointed the most unpopular VP of all time and tried to gaslight us into thinking she is the next coming because Meg Stallion shook her ass on stage to get the vote out because…. “Joy”

    What exactly did you expect would happen?

    These are your sins. Will you learn from them? Or continue to repeat them?

    America has spoken, and they are not buying what the @DNC is selling.

    Wake up call.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    The thing that is absurd is that every farmer will now get into the kind of tax avoiding estates planning that the Labour Party hates. So every farmer will be spending thousands of pounds to kinda of return the
    situation to what it was before - plus inconvenience.

    So productivity in agriculture just went down. Yay.
    And the profitability of lawyers went up.

    In an entirely unrelated question, is the PM a farmer or a lawyer?
  • Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    I always come up with a list which will save about £40-60 billion/year including ending Net Zero, foreign aid, HS2, aid to Northern Ireland and farming subsidies, and that's without breaking any sweat at all.

    Until recently I worked in a public sector bureaucracy and I know there's loads of fat in public sector numbers if not staff costs.
    HS2 - are you mad, seriously?
    Building a new M6 equivalent between places that don't yet have direct connections would do far more to improve connections in the North and add far more capacity to transportation than adding another train line between places that already have train lines.
  • I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.

    I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.

    Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    algarkirk said:

    Quite interesting, first I'd heard of the neighbour effect. Fair play to the Frenchman, a cunning plan, carefully executed.

    https://x.com/blader/status/1854366739511030065

    Seems to me a genuine and useful insight. In betting terms in looking for value you can even try to do the exercise in your head to see if you think the data is on the wrong track. Eg might it have been helpful in the last GE in working out that the Tories would overperform and Labour underperform the polling. Ditto the EU referendum.
    Those kind of polls have been around for a while, I think.

    BUT it would be interesting to see which polls were actually closer - these 'who are your neighbours voting for' or the traditional 'who are you voting for', before we get too excited. Given that the normal polls were overall not far off, it sounds like they were maybe closer, if the 'neighbour' poll was 'mind blowing to the favour Trump' as the article claims.

    It could be a clue to which direction the polls are more likely to be out in, rather than being closer to the actual result? Or it could just mean Democrat voters are more pessimistic...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    MaxPB said:

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
    That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144

    Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...

    But Trump is actually appealing to these people. The Tories are not making any effort whatsoever.

    It’s a false comparison. I have said continuously if you appeal to people like me they will vote for you. But you aren’t.
    It will be interesting if Badenoch does turn her attention to the younger vote and indeed abandons the triple lock to something like inflation plus 1%

    These are early days but I do share your hope for more youth and young policies

    Also on a subject you are versed in, report today at just how bad 5G is across the country and in Mostyn Street in Llandudno ( the main street) Internet access within the shops is virtually zero
    Quadruple lock - the ceiling for the state pension is the Income Tax personal allowance.

    You heard it here, first.
    They should add a random number into the formula each year, just to keep it interesting.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    Dopermean said:

    So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?

    Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?

    Absolutely not.

    They don't want crypto regulated, how dare the state interfere with most of them losing all their savings...
    Is that why they didn't vote for Harris who promised to underwrite Crypto losses for young black guys.
  • IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
    That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
    People will say it’s sexism but it’s not. Harris offered nothing to get people to vote for her.

    I’m a woman is not a reason. She needed to offer something on the economy. She didn’t.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    eek said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @Cookie

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.

    He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.

    Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
    Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.

    This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
    Ahahahahahaha
    My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers.
    In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.

    Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point

    “I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.

    The response?

    "That will be the way we go forwards"

    Watch for yourself.”

    https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1854434448764485959?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

    Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
    Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
    That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
    We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
    So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.

    I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
    What I have seen work, in multiple companies, is the following -

    - internal units doing what external management consultancies, nearly always fuck up.
    - they hire in individuals contractors if required to bulk out staffing during development etc.
    - their job is streamlining process and systems.
    - this is an ongoing, "couple of percent each year" kind of thing.
    - no attempts to re-engineer the entire company in one go. Piece by piece. And it's like the old story of painting the bridge. It's never completed.
    - it needs massive buy in and support from top management.

    This leads to real productivity improvements. For example, in one bank, they got SSO working for everything in a 2 year program. SSO = Single Sign On. This is when you login once - all the systems you use pick up on that login, so you only need one userid and password to access everything for your job.

    Another was a bank that analysed their use of contractors - and turned all the "permanent contractors" into full time staff. Which meant pay rises for some positions, but ended up cheaper over a 5 year cycle.

    This is grown up "cutting red tape".

    Remember that's what I do but those small continual productivity improvements that eventually create big gains is not what Fishing and co are talking about. They have an Elon view of the world where whole sets of costs can simply be removed by firing whole departments.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    edited November 7
    Fishing said:

    Trump in landslide. Some upset shock.

    I wouldn't call it a "landslide". The final share of the vote might be 51:48.

    It was fairly efficiently distributed in a 50:50 country, but even Kamala, a dire token candidate anointed by the party machine, still won more than 200 EC votes. Republicans shouldn't get carried away. I can see people getting pretty sick of endless incompetence, psychodramas and megalomania over the next couple of years, and Trump is now a lame duck who can't run again and therefore may find it difficult to control his party especially in Congress and the states as those under him jockey for succession.
    Of course it isn't a maths landslide, it's a political landslide, like the Brexit vote, and our recent General election. If Harris had won 270 EC votes with 3% more of the votes the discussion would be very different. IMHO it was always going to be close, and Trump was always going to win.

    We can already say, from the anorak's point of view, that the next POTUS election (if Trump allows one of course) is going to be fascinating; as is the next four years.

    Trump won because it is possible to see an upside to Trump from the voters' point of view. Not so with Harris.
  • IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
    That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
    Women: Know Your Place.

    The idea anyone should expect a woman to vote as she's told by her husband, or the same way, is sickening.

    Nobody would expect a man to vote as his wife tells him to.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    Why is New Mexico so Democratic? The only state away from the far north east where the Dems took every single House seat.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972

    Musk has destroyed Twitter.

    From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, Tweets have nothing to do with the post above.

    If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.

    The latest glitch/dumb promotion is that paid ad tweets drop down to partly cover the entirely unconnected tweet below.

    Edit: seems to have stopped doing it now so I'm going for glitch.
    Still doing it on mine. bloody annoying.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Musk has destroyed Twitter.

    From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…

    If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.

    Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares

    He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness

    $44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141

    algarkirk said:

    A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).

    From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.

    Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?

    Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.

    The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.

    What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
    Surely it was Sir Elton wot won it for Sir Keir?
  • algarkirk said:

    A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).

    From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.

    Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?

    Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.

    The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.

    What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
    I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.

    I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!

    Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    algarkirk said:

    A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).

    From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.

    Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?

    Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.

    The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.

    What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
    Very eloquent and accurate. You should comment more often, young man
  • Waiting to read that Tories will die off naturally post in...3...2...1...

    But Trump is actually appealing to these people. The Tories are not making any effort whatsoever.

    It’s a false comparison. I have said continuously if you appeal to people like me they will vote for you. But you aren’t.
    It will be interesting if Badenoch does turn her attention to the younger vote and indeed abandons the triple lock to something like inflation plus 1%

    These are early days but I do share your hope for more youth and young policies

    Also on a subject you are versed in, report today at just how bad 5G is across the country and in Mostyn Street in Llandudno ( the main street) Internet access within the shops is virtually zero
    Woah, woah, woah! Inflation PLUS? And you think that's an abandonment?

    What else gets index linked to more than inflation, annually?

    It should be either inflation, or wages, and stick with it whichever it is. Not a plus, not the highest, one or the other and that's it.
  • algarkirk said:

    A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).

    From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.

    Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?

    Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.

    The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.

    What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
    Surely it was Sir Elton wot won it for Sir Keir?
    Starmer won how Harris was trying to win I guess. But she was the incumbent.

    She thought she was Starmer, actually she was Sunak.

    (Not actually)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.

    I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.

    I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
    That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
    I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
This discussion has been closed.