Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
You're probably right. How about a Referendum ;-) on Money to Trident vs NHS?
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
The Tories could put VAt upto 30%.They have always increased that when needed.
There’s a small part of Nick Clegg that gets it, unlike many of his fellow Remain co-travellers he is both perceptive and intelligent. He has also said the EU needs to become much more comfortable with national identity, which even Donald Tusk flirted with recently wrt. Serbia’s accession talks.
However, these are just words and are too little, too late. The EU could sink Brexit by removing a few of its federalist symbols with respect to the UK, and some sensible caveats/limits on free movement but it is unable or unwilling to see it, and just as theological about its “Project” as Nigel Farage is about total independence.
The EU is not trusted by the UK electorate, certainly not after the negotiations on Brexit, but probably never was trusted. Cameron did not even get a vague offer from the EU about freedom of movement. Blair got a vague offer about changes to the CAP in return for increased contributions by the UK to the EU. The CAP changes never happened.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
You're probably right. How about a Referendum ;-) on Money to Trident vs NHS?
How about a referendum on the basic rate of income tax?
The difficulty with betting on the next Conservative leader is knowing if the MPs and then the Conservative members who make the choice will vote for the person they prefer or vote for the person they think the electorate prefer.
Gove is popular with members but not so much with the electorate. Rees-Mogg and Javid would be a gamble as regards public popularity. Javid more likely to gain popularity in the longer term.
Johnson has good recognition in public and can demonstrate his success being elected in a Labour heartland as London major.
Hunt likely to be seen as too managerial and Davidson as too whacky.
Leadsom and Raab too anonymous.
We should not forget though that it is the members who will decide from the final two on the MPs short list - not the public.
The membership will generally go with the safe public choice, as long as it doesn't cross any red lines. Clarke, in 2001, crossed a red line with his views on the Euro. However, in 2005, Cameron was the clear choice over the right-wing candidate; and in 2016, the polling had May beating Leadsom (and anyone else, IIRC), even before Leadsom's campaign's implosion.
The thing we know about Boris is that he is a good campaigner - energetic and shameless. If given the chance to campaign among the membership, he could do well. However, to get there he needs support among MPs and whether he's a good campaigner among MPs, where a different skillset is required, is another matter. They will not be fobbed off by bland optimism and long words after the experience of his time at the FO.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.
About £2billion/year apparently, so not enough on its own to fund the proposed increase. So higher taxes and bye bye Triple Lock? Could save a bit by cancelling Brexit too.
30 races at Royal Ascot and a World Cup to bet on and some are obsessing about a contest in which we don't know the runners and riders yet.
So, moving massively OFF topic to something of more interest - England have three "styles" of World Cup campaign - the confident start which promises miracles and fades to nothing, the poor start which suddenly blossoms into a couple of world class performances before reality intrudes or the poor start which never gets going and it's an early flight home.
I don't know - I just can't see that squad producing two or three world class performances to get beyond the QF stage - they could do it once and just conceivably twice.
As for the most important sporting event of the week by a country mile, it's off to Berkshire and I don't know if Ascot racecourse is in Theresa May's constituency (HYUFD might be able to help me out) but HMQ will of course be present.
My Day 1 selections for the big races are:
2.30: LIGHTNING SPEAR (e/w) 3.45: LADY AURELIA 4.20: US NAVY FLAG (e/w)
Have a successful betting week all whatever markets you're playing.
The starts for England ,which was successfully were a draw 1966 winners and 1990 , semi finals..
They did get to the quarter finals in 1986 , after a defeat in the first match.
However the missed opportunity was in 1982 , when they started with a 3-1 win against France. Never lost a game . However went out , as it was a different format.
1970 was also a massive missed opportunity. 2-0 vs W Germany in a QF with 25 minutes to go.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
You're probably right. How about a Referendum ;-) on Money to Trident vs NHS?
How about a referendum on the basic rate of income tax?
A binary question - up 5% or down 5%.
Which would win?
This is one reason why I'm seriously against referenda (my previous suggestion was a joke, of course).
The difficulty with betting on the next Conservative leader is knowing if the MPs and then the Conservative members who make the choice will vote for the person they prefer or vote for the person they think the electorate prefer.
Gove is popular with members but not so much with the electorate. Rees-Mogg and Javid would be a gamble as regards public popularity. Javid more likely to gain popularity in the longer term.
Johnson has good recognition in public and can demonstrate his success being elected in a Labour heartland as London major.
Hunt likely to be seen as too managerial and Davidson as too whacky.
Leadsom and Raab too anonymous.
We should not forget though that it is the members who will decide from the final two on the MPs short list - not the public.
To be fair to both Hunt and Javid relatively unknown Cameron came through the Pack to get elected leader in 2005
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The fact is that with a growing and ageing population there are a whole series of strains on public spending. The growth in public spending since 2010 has been exceptionally small in real terms, well below the long term average. This has inevitably increased pressures on a whole range of areas from Health, education, infrastructure, transport, defence and, of course, public sector wages. What it has not done, regrettably, is eliminate the horrific deficit that was built up during the recession.
One of the main reasons for this is that growth has been modest, not just here but throughout the developed world. Taxes have been increased, especially on the better off, but we simply cannot afford what we are spending right now.
It seems to me that we have some difficult choices. Either we look to radically reshape public sector services or we find additional sources of income. In my view income is already highly taxed in this country, capital and wealth are not. It seems inevitable that we will need to have people pay for their personal care, even posthumously, from their capital. In short we need a dementia style tax back, albeit one that applies a lot more generally than the idiotic nonsense in the Tory Manifesto. I really don't see a credible alternative.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
Lower the benefit cap, raise income tax by a penny, tax capital gains as income. That'd bring in a decent amount.
the problem with Capital gains is all the reliefs which are present with it, not so much the headline rate. Without wholescale reform of those, then thats a very dangerous thing to say in isolation.
Massively overated team that occasionally gets lucky but when they finally face decent opposition they have their testicles handed to them.
Bring back Sven.
Who gets sacked first?
Jones or Southgate?
Oh Jones, no question. Southgate has already rather cleverly positioned himself as building towards the future so even an extremely modest WC should not prove fatal this time around. Jones, on the other hand, is reaping some of the arrogance that he sewed.
Listening to Radio Daily Mirror this morning all the journos have been glowing about Southgate and his dealing with them and the players. Perhaps the government need to employ him to learn how to do decent PR.
A few years ago, myself and Mrs Urquhart found ourselves holidaying at the same small resort as the Southgate family. I have to say he came across as a really nice family guy. I can't say that of many other professional footballers I have met in the past.
Massively overated team that occasionally gets lucky but when they finally face decent opposition they have their testicles handed to them.
Bring back Sven.
Who gets sacked first?
Jones or Southgate?
Oh Jones, no question. Southgate has already rather cleverly positioned himself as building towards the future so even an extremely modest WC should not prove fatal this time around. Jones, on the other hand, is reaping some of the arrogance that he sewed.
Listening to Radio Daily Mirror this morning all the journos have been glowing about Southgate and his dealing with them and the players. Perhaps the government need to employ him to learn how to do decent PR.
A few years ago, myself and Mrs Urquhart found ourselves holidaying at the same small resort as the Southgate family. I have to say he came across as a really nice family guy. I can't say that of many other professional footballers I have met in the past.
Southgate of course has been the first England Manager to actually go through the process of playing for England at a tournament, and infamously has first hand experience of losing on penalties.
I'm sure he knows how much that hurts and what it can do to you, and I'm sure he's preparing and supporting his players well on that front.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.
About £2billion/year apparently, so not enough on its own to fund the proposed increase. So higher taxes and bye bye Triple Lock? Could save a bit by cancelling Brexit too.
30 races at Royal Ascot and a World Cup to bet on and some are obsessing about a contest in which we don't know the runners and riders yet.
So, moving massively OFF topic to something of more interest - England have three "styles" of World Cup campaign - the confident start which promises miracles and fades to nothing, the poor start which suddenly blossoms into a couple of world class performances before reality intrudes or the poor start which never gets going and it's an early flight home.
I don't know - I just can't see that squad producing two or three world class performances to get beyond the QF stage - they could do it once and just conceivably twice.
As for the most important sporting event of the week by a country mile, it's off to Berkshire and I don't know if Ascot racecourse is in Theresa May's constituency (HYUFD might be able to help me out) but HMQ will of course be present.
My Day 1 selections for the big races are:
2.30: LIGHTNING SPEAR (e/w) 3.45: LADY AURELIA 4.20: US NAVY FLAG (e/w)
Have a successful betting week all whatever markets you're playing.
The starts for England ,which was successfully were a draw 1966 winners and 1990 , semi finals..
They did get to the quarter finals in 1986 , after a defeat in the first match.
However the missed opportunity was in 1982 , when they started with a 3-1 win against France. Never lost a game . However went out , as it was a different format.
1970 was also a massive missed opportunity. 2-0 vs W Germany in a QF with 25 minutes to go.
Very true David.They should have won that.
After that defeat England failed to qualify in 1974 and 1978.
Italy and Holland will be able to understand that feeling at this world cup.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
Lower the benefit cap, raise income tax by a penny, tax capital gains as income. That'd bring in a decent amount.
the problem with Capital gains is all the reliefs which are present with it, not so much the headline rate. Without wholescale reform of those, then thats a very dangerous thing to say in isolation.
Normally reliefs are present to drive a desired behaviour such as investment in green technology.
Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.
I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.
Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ? Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.
.. but not enough.
How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.
Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't. The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it
I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles. Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.
A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.
The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.
The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.
I actually reckon a lot of it would go back into the general pool of the Treasury for popular tax and spending pledges.
I would feel vulnerable without Trident and hope that never happens.
There’s a small part of Nick Clegg that gets it, unlike many of his fellow Remain co-travellers he is both perceptive and intelligent. He has also said the EU needs to become much more comfortable with national identity, which even Donald Tusk flirted with recently wrt. Serbia’s accession talks.
However, these are just words and are too little, too late. The EU could sink Brexit by removing a few of its federalist symbols with respect to the UK, and some sensible caveats/limits on free movement but it is unable or unwilling to see it, and just as theological about its “Project” as Nigel Farage is about total independence.
The EU is not trusted by the UK electorate, certainly not after the negotiations on Brexit, but probably never was trusted. Cameron did not even get a vague offer from the EU about freedom of movement. Blair got a vague offer about changes to the CAP in return for increased contributions by the UK to the EU. The CAP changes never happened.
Nope. It’s all the fault of our right wing newspapers and one wing of the Conservative Party. The EU have absolutely nothing whatever to do with it.
Why the assumption that a Tory leadership contest would go to the membership? Two or three months of caretaker leadership, in a time like this? The number two is likely to drop out as Leadsom did.
There is certainly an ongoing effort to make Tories look cuddly (all those zillions "for the NHS", the May vow to end the upskirting menace, pragmatism over cannabis to save a young life in Northern Ireland), so I think a general election can't be far off. For that, a new leader will surely be needed.
As for Javid lifting the cap on immigration "to help the NHS", that may have played well in focus groups because it's got the word "NHS" in it, but I think people pull their punches on immigration in focus groups just as much as in opinion polls. This one's not a votewinner for the Tories or a reputation builder for Javid. Not outside SW1 it isn't. Increased immigration, spun as to help the NHS? C'mon.
I think members would rightly be hacked off if after 15 years waiting for the next leadership contest it didn't go to the membership. All that tedious pounding the streets, attending events and buying goddam raffle tickets does deserves some occasional payback.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
Nah, the Guardian is wrong and should immediately be shunned by all left-minded thinkers.
After all, we've been told the event was 'actually pretty successful'
Why did you not go ?
I arrived home on Friday after four days camping, and was washing my tent.
Otherwise I'd have been first in the queue to buy reasonably-priced goods and listen to words of infinite wisdom amidst great music by well-known acts.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
If you are using the last election as a baseline then you have to factor in that no-one expected Labour to win so Corbyn and the fantasy manifesto were not critically analysed, and Labour were a safe repository for protest votes. On the other side, May drove people to oppose by saying she wanted a huge majority to push through Brexit, a great way to recruit Lib Dems to Labour, and then she shot herself in the foot with the manifesto, and her performances. The whole 'strategy' drove probably 20- 30 seats to Labour.
I doubt that . By the final week of the campaign quite a few polls were suggesting the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament - and that was before taking account of the Tory surge in Scotland which rather implied a weaker relative performance in England & Wales than indicated by the national headline figures.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
"1970 was also a massive missed opportunity. 2-0 vs W Germany in a QF with 25 minutes to go."
You're now reminded of the true horror of that day. It's took me about five years to forget all about it, now it's come back in technicolour. Thanks for nothing.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
And I imagine that 2 such polarising figures would make it very difficult for any of the smaller parties to get a look-in. I'd much rather the Tories go for someone who doesn't fire up either their own or the opposition activists, er Hammond for leader?
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
Even so there are 15 Labour marginal seats with majorities under 1000 the Tories are targeting, 12 of which voted Leave and all of which will be vulnerable even with incumbency.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
And I imagine that 2 such polarising figures would make it very difficult for any of the smaller parties to get a look-in. I'd much rather the Tories go for someone who doesn't fire up either their own or the opposition activists, er Hammond for leader?
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Us poor self employed are not able to get up to such shenanigans. :-)
Nah, the Guardian is wrong and should immediately be shunned by all left-minded thinkers.
After all, we've been told the event was 'actually pretty successful'
Why did you not go ?
I arrived home on Friday after four days camping, and was washing my tent.
Otherwise I'd have been first in the queue to buy reasonably-priced goods and listen to words of infinite wisdom amidst great music by well-known acts.
Well I hope you are cheering on England this evening, and singing , World in motion.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
Similarly I would argue that 2001 is a better guide to people's underlying attitudes to the EU (and Eurosceptics) than the referendum, which took place in a very unique context with circumstances that cannot ever be repeated.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
For this reason they have to go with Javid, who I tipped here years ago for his son of a bus driver working class background. They did it with Cameron and his disabled son, and his support of the NHS as someone who had used it.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
On that basis, what would electing Javid signify?
That the Tory party is completely obsessed with buses?
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
Assuming that sacs refers to salary sacrifice, what are the main areas that can be exploited?
Are the sacrifices for things that people realy want/need/value?
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 201her.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
For this reason they have to go with Javid, who I tipped here years ago for his son of a bus driver working class background. They did it with Cameron and his disabled son, and his support of the NHS as someone who had used it.
Very funny Dead Ringers on Friday with Sajid "as the son of a Pakistani bus driver" Javid being "interviewed", if you heard it.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London today.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
The fun Boris of 2012 was not the toxic Boris of 2018.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
Even so there are 15 Labour marginal seats with majorities under 1000 the Tories are targeting, 12 of which voted Leave and all of which will be vulnerable even with incumbency.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
What loophole lol - a teeny tiny break for the hard pressed PAYE employee !
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
Because its good to support employers paying into employee pensions.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London today.
He would also have lost in 2012 had Labour selected a candidate other than Livingstone.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The Tories are currently polling about 42% in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
Tories live in abject fear of another GE1997, but it’s a different country now and politics are more polarised around values than economics.
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
Agreed.
There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I
The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
Nah, the Guardian is wrong and should immediately be shunned by all left-minded thinkers.
After all, we've been told the event was 'actually pretty successful'
Why did you not go ?
I arrived home on Friday after four days camping, and was washing my tent.
Otherwise I'd have been first in the queue to buy reasonably-priced goods and listen to words of infinite wisdom amidst great music by well-known acts.
Well I hope you are cheering on England this evening, and singing , World in motion.
I am utterly uninterested in football. I hope England win, but will probably find something slightly more productive to do with my time. But I hope everyone enjoys themselves.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
I assume it was a way to sell auto-enrolment to small companies. The savings on Employers NI will help pay for the paperwork.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
Similarly I would argue that 2001 is a better guide to people's underlying attitudes to the EU (and Eurosceptics) than the referendum, which took place in a very unique context with circumstances that cannot ever be repeated.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The Tories are currently polling about 42% in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
Tories live in abject fear of another GE1997, but it’s a different country now and politics are more polarised around values than economics.
GE1997 wasn't about economics. There was very little difference between what Blair was offering and the Tory offer. The big difference was that the Tories were tired out, and Blair was offering a bright new (unspecified) sunny tomorrow.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The Tories are currently polling about 42% in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
Tories live in abject fear of another GE1997, but it’s a different country now and politics are more polarised around values than economics.
Agreed, the Tories may no longer hold seats like Enfield Southgate and Ilford North they won in 1992 but they do hold seats like Mansfield and Thurrock which were Labour in 1992
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I
The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
I assume it was a way to sell auto-enrolment to small companies. The savings on Employers NI will help pay for the paperwork.
Auto-enrolment doesn't have anything to do directly with salary sac. Unless you plan to pay over the minimum levels of course.
The fun Boris of 2012 was not the toxic Boris of 2018.
This is true. But that's because he repositioned to fit his next audience, which is Conservative Party members. If they elected him then he'd reposition again to do whoever he needed to win the next general election; Some of the Brexit toxicity will have stuck, but leave voters are in the majority, and he'd presumably be up against Jeremy Corbyn.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.
Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.
The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.
I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.
Yes thats true
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)
Why is there this loophole in our system?
I assume it was a way to sell auto-enrolment to small companies. The savings on Employers NI will help pay for the paperwork.
Re pensions. This morning I received my pension statement for the six months to April. The City slickers running my fund managed to lose £60. I'd have been better off putting it into a shoebox under the bed. Pensions are not necessarily a panacea -- ask anyone who has retired since near-zero interest rates and it might be time to look for an alternative.
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
Agreed.
There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.
One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
Agreed.
There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.
Liz Kendall was the MP.
She was the future once.
One of many with ability biding their time on select committees until Jezza-fest combusts.
Just the latest example of the FT abandoning any sense of objectivity when it comes to EU issues. Clearly beyond 2020, as things stand, we will no longer be paying the full EU membership fee. That is a fact. Many economists predict a negative GDP impact that will outweigh it, but then many economists predicted EMU would be economically advantageous when actually it collapsed half the bloc. But the FT does not care about all that because they are raving metropolitan Europhiles who are incapable of considering other views on this matter.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
Similarly I would argue that 2001 is a better guide to people's underlying attitudes to the EU (and Eurosceptics) than the referendum, which took place in a very unique context with circumstances that cannot ever be repeated.
LOL. A general election fought on a dozen issues is more reliable view of people's EU preference than an actual referendum on specifically this issue where more people voted. You couldn't try for a better example of Remainers thinking democracy should just be a show with the results intepreted to fit metropolitan elite views regardless of what happened.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I
The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
The problem with Boris as leader is that he is bumbling and lazy. The only people that think he is a xenophobic racist are those that already hate the Tories.
The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.
Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London
Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.
I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
I
The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory ay
1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
Comments
How about a Referendum ;-) on Money to Trident vs NHS?
How about a referendum on the basic rate of income tax?
A binary question - up 5% or down 5%.
Which would win?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/18/jeremy-corbyn-tories-little-fear-jezfest-labour-live
The thing we know about Boris is that he is a good campaigner - energetic and shameless. If given the chance to campaign among the membership, he could do well. However, to get there he needs support among MPs and whether he's a good campaigner among MPs, where a different skillset is required, is another matter. They will not be fobbed off by bland optimism and long words after the experience of his time at the FO.
Could save a bit by cancelling Brexit too.
How could they tell?
So it could be argued that it is only fair to change the triple lock and just increase pensions in line with CPI for the next ten years.
After all, we've been told the event was 'actually pretty successful'
One of the main reasons for this is that growth has been modest, not just here but throughout the developed world. Taxes have been increased, especially on the better off, but we simply cannot afford what we are spending right now.
It seems to me that we have some difficult choices. Either we look to radically reshape public sector services or we find additional sources of income. In my view income is already highly taxed in this country, capital and wealth are not. It seems inevitable that we will need to have people pay for their personal care, even posthumously, from their capital. In short we need a dementia style tax back, albeit one that applies a lot more generally than the idiotic nonsense in the Tory Manifesto. I really don't see a credible alternative.
A few years ago, myself and Mrs Urquhart found ourselves holidaying at the same small resort as the Southgate family. I have to say he came across as a really nice family guy. I can't say that of many other professional footballers I have met in the past.
I'm sure he knows how much that hurts and what it can do to you, and I'm sure he's preparing and supporting his players well on that front.
After that defeat England failed to qualify in 1974 and 1978.
Italy and Holland will be able to understand that feeling at this world cup.
But it won't be by a Tory government.
I would feel vulnerable without Trident and hope that never happens.
I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.
Apparently.
Otherwise I'd have been first in the queue to buy reasonably-priced goods and listen to words of infinite wisdom amidst great music by well-known acts.
But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.
In short a battle cry for Labour.
"1970 was also a massive missed opportunity. 2-0 vs W Germany in a QF with 25 minutes to go."
You're now reminded of the true horror of that day. It's took me about five years to forget all about it, now it's come back in technicolour. Thanks for nothing.
The Standard cartoon being one example.
The Tories need 8 of those for an overall majority
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
Are the sacrifices for things that people realy want/need/value?
Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
The Brexit Dividend is that to pay for the increased NHS funding taxes and borrowing will be higher than otherwise would have been the case.
There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.
So difficult to predict.
One of many with ability biding their time on select committees until Jezza-fest combusts.
https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/sport/football/harrogate-veterans-win-seniors-world-cup-for-england-once-again-1-9204234
However according to this ,the Queen acts on advice from ministers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19407451