He's been behind the curve all along. I remember saying on March 11th that his budget was a nonsense because it took almost no account of the looming Covid-19 effect on the economy. It lasted all of a few days before he had to throw it in the bin.
Now, to be fair, this isn't an easy gig, but it should have been obvious by August that more targeted support would be needed.
Yep, Annelise Dodds gets a lot of stick, but she has been way ahead of Sunak on this. It makes no difference to the politics that she has been proved right, Sunak's popularity will soar on the back of this, but she has been.
RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"
Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.
It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
Just like at GE19 with polls showing a clear Con win I learnt nothing from 2017 when the polls also pointed to a clear Con win but we got a shock hung parliament. It was one of the most lucrative bits of non-education I've ever undertaken.
Though Survation was closest in 2017 and by 2019 was predicting a clear Tory win too, in 2016 Trafalgar was closest at state level and Rasmussen nationally and Trafalgar has Trump still holding Michigan and Rasmussen now has it Biden +3%
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
A lot of politicians are in my experience. I was really surprised how charismatic John Major was in person.
I met John Major in the 80s and also Jeremy Corbyn and Boris. I found Major and Corbyn far more attractive than Boris as both Major and Corbyn appeared interested in what I was saying whereas Boris only seemed interested in Boris.
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
£1000/ month, £250/ week with multiple children must be heaven
I note you missed my saying "well over" and that I never said heaven.
Someone working Full Time minimum wage only takes home a comparable amount after tax and national insurance too.
Plus once more you missed the fact I made a specific proposal as to how the system should be made more generous by slashing the taper rate.
So what more do you want me to say?
Unfortunately many think £1000 a month adequate not really getting at you. Although to be honest €1000 a month is the normal income in Spain for a very large proportion of the population with little differentiation between a petrol pump attendant and say a town hall clerk. The €1000 is take home and people do seem to mange but it’s cheaper out here across the board.
The thing is food in the UK is now incredibly cheap. A bag of potatoes in Aldi is 30 pence. A loaf of bread is 35 pence. You can get bags of decent food for £20. And if you hang around for the reductions its amazing what you can get. When I was bought up in the 70s food accounted for 30% of the average salary. I doubt now its more than 7%. To give a child a lunch of say jacket potato with beans will cost less than 20 pence.
It absolutely depends wehre you live, and hwo much you can afford to buy in bulk.
If you arte on one of the outer estates or country villages and can';t afford transport you are utterly screwed.
Oh so Toby has migrated from "Classic Liberal" to "English Nationalist" then.
That's quite big news and he joins the ranks of other intellectuals down the years who have gone without fear or favour where their principles take them.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
So what was the point of the Manchester stuff? This was basically what was the point of difference. That GM needed more cash because they'd been in Tier 2 longer.
Yep, Annelise Dodds gets a lot of stick, but she has been way ahead of Sunak on this. It makes no difference to the politics that she has been proved right, Sunak's popularity will soar on the back of this, but she has been.
I wouldn't go that far. She was just making vague complaints, but they weren't specific enough to be a sensible critique, in the way that the comments of the Resolution Foundation were.
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
I`ve noticed this too. I`d say the Burnham approach chimes in Manchester but not elsewhere. The Jarvis approach is seen better generally.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
For me the most important thing is not the sum it is the percentage.
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63% If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75% If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
So what was the point of the Manchester stuff? This was basically what was the point of difference. That GM needed more cash because they'd been in Tier 2 longer.
This gives Manchester the money it needs, without Westminster having to lose face?
Whoever comes up with an analogous solution to the Brexit knot will be genuinely deserving of all our thanks.
There's a certain type of English hack that thinks that they have to produce an opinion (however hackneyed and clichėd) on Scottish indy, it's like a Scout badge for these people. Next, expect a Tobster piece on his Cybernat hell.
RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"
Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.
It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
Just like at GE19 with polls showing a clear Con win I learnt nothing from 2017 when the polls also pointed to a clear Con win but we got a shock hung parliament. It was one of the most lucrative bits of non-education I've ever undertaken.
Though Survation was closest in 2017 and by 2019 was predicting a clear Tory win too, in 2016 Trafalgar was closest at state level and Rasmussen nationally and Trafalgar has Trump still holding Michigan and Rasmussen now has it Biden +3%
You can always cherry pick individual polls in hindsight. Proves very little. My point is that the weight of polls and the consensus in 17 and 19 was for a clear Con win. In 17 it was wrong. In 19 it was right. Apply that here to WH20 cf 16 and it means a clear Biden win. The feel of it? Tick. The look of it? Tick. Most of the data? Tick. The stars are aligning.
Pretty desperate stuff. When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer. It reminds me of the guff that Labour supporters used to put out about Cameron. Remember those? Cameron was a chameleon, a lightweight, no experience, a SPAD. None of it worked, because the electorate eventually worked out that Gordon Brown was essentially a pretty useless leader and PM. Gordo looks like a colossus compared to Shagger, and I would say Starmer's back story is a lot lot stronger than Cameron's. The Tories didn't throw Cameron overboard because they knew he was the best they had. Labour will be even less inclined to do so with Starmer, because he is the best they have by a country mile. I can see that and I am not a Labour supporter.
I agree.
Labour have nobody near him at this time, even though it seems he is not cutting through by as much as one may expect
Still early days. Do we really need an inspirational Tony Blair figure for 2024? By the time we get to 2024, the last thing we will need or want is another bull******, uninspiring and competent will fit the bill perfectly.
It's worth remembering that when Blair became Labour leader Labour already had a sizeable lead in the polls and the party was a few years into a detoxification process. He built on work already begun. Starmer inherited a very different position.
Given how crap the government has proved to be, it is pretty clear that the reason it remains ahead in the polling is largely a Labour issue. There is a lot more work to be done. I doubt many people serious about Labour winning again would dispute that.
It is also worth remembering that Tony Blair did inspire a lot of people. It's harder to remember on the wrong side of Iraq, tuition fees, and the general grubbiness that being in power stains you with, that Blair was like a rock star in 90s. I never voted for him, but it was an exciting time for many.
Blair was the real deal, but he also had a very strong supporting cast. Labour looked like the government long before it took charge. I think a fair few people could imagine Starmer in Downing Street, but there is no Gordon Brown to stand beside him - or a Cook, a Mandelson, a Mowlam, a Straw etc etc. That is the challenge Labour has. Voters probably would not mind the party's leader as PM, but they want Rishi Sunak running the economy. Things can change, though.
Yeah the Labour shadow cabinet is wank.
Compared to the Tory extra B team in office?
If you go down the list comparing the lightweight, generally weak CVs of the current cabinet and then compare with the shadow cabinet, you begin to feel that there is simply no beginning to the list of Tory talents.
As a neutral in this fight I would just note that, amongst others,
Nick Thomas-Symonds Eats Priti Patel David Lammy is often very impressive- even though I disagree with his views, he commands respect Anneliese Dodds is an academic heavyweight who is already pushing Sunak around a bit and the Labour treasury team overall is extremely solid. Kate Green is another solid figure at education as Williamson flounders Ed Miliband is wounding Alok Sharma quite regularly at business
The fact is that figures like Rees Mogg, Hancock, Wiliamson, Raab are also, to coin a phrase much used by my Tory friends, "NBG".
Starmer is playing a long game, and allowing Johnson to make his own mistakes, the first of which was selecting a cabinet of "zero to low wattage".
BTW that is also a quote from a Tory friend. The fact is that most Tory MPs are perfectly well aware that the cabinet is overall a D- which is yet another reason why they are so glum.
Activist in Spiderman outfit is arrested after scaling Parliament scaffolding to unfurl banner muddled with slogans from XR, BLM, LGBT, All Lives Matter and many more
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
For me the most important thing is not the sum it is the percentage.
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63% If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75% If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
I agree, but be wary. The only way to reduce the taper rate, without spending a lot more money, is to reduce the basic amount paid before applying the taper, or to introduce the start of the taper at a lower level.
Both those things make the effective tax rate better, but make the very poorest people poorer.
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
Spot on. Except that I don't think it's either/or. Why not a bit of both? Hence the Blair/Prescott, Starmer/Rayner comparison I made earlier. Starmer stays statesmanlike, above the hurly burly of the fray, but those who are up for a fight are let off the leash a bit more. I think this will be especially effective when/if the Covid pandemic is not centre stage.
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
I`ve noticed this too. I`d say the Burnham approach chimes in Manchester but not elsewhere. The Jarvis approach is seen better generally.
I sense that - the Jarvis - would come more naturally to Starmer and if so he should go with it since you shouldn't try to be something you're not. I'm really not sure how it's going to pan out. I like him and think he's very able and it's early days to do too much poll watching. But if Labour are not solidly leading say a year from now (when things in the country will probably be quite grim and there'll be no Brexit distraction) then it might be time for a rethink.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
And then note that the numbers registering for free school meals have increased by something around a million in the last six months.
Without the resources of government, it would be difficult to provide the comprehensive data you'd like, I suspect.
As for efficacy, you might take a look at the US food stamp program. It's obviously only a rough analogue, but again without dedicated research into what is an new and immediate need, I don't really know how you might quickly answer that question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program#Impact
I think the risk is that it is possible to say the same phrase 4 times in any response.
Indeed, but "Here's the deal" at 8 mentions looks a pretty good sell all the same. Of course there's a risk that they'll say it many times, but that's the nature of the market. The other one I sold was QAnon at 5.
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
There's around that many who admit to liking pineapple on pizza...
We are many.
And we are stronger, because we're getting one of our five a day. Anti-pineapplers are basically atrophied wastrels, an evolutionary dead-end, a societal wrong turn, an error.
Those who disparage Anneliese Dodds so readily should listen to the clip above. She's very articulate, makes good points, and what she's saying is consistent with her (and Starmer's) attack lines for the last four months. I suspect she's more capable, and brighter, than Sunak. In particular, she's been pointing out the lack of focus on support schemes, the wasted money, and the £2.6 billion spent unnecessarily on the bribe to retain employees next year.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
A lot of politicians are in my experience. I was really surprised how charismatic John Major was in person.
I have met SJM a few times and am now basically a superfan, even though my first vote in a GE was to kick his government out of office! His brand of Toryism is something I can understand and respect, even though I don't think I would ever vote for it. BJ is a shallow, self-obsessed, lying charlatan in the flesh, just like on TV, although he does exude a kind of needy charisma that certainly charms a lot of people. I've met five PMs in total: Callaghan and Major came across best - the only ones who didn't attend Oxford University or private school.
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
Variety is the spice of life. A good cabinet/shadow cabinet should be 50% your competent bank manager, 30% your fiery passionate motivators and communicators, 20% deep thinkers and strategists.
If any of them are good at more than one of the three they probably do not end up in politics!
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
A lot of politicians are in my experience. I was really surprised how charismatic John Major was in person.
I met John Major in the 80s and also Jeremy Corbyn and Boris. I found Major and Corbyn far more attractive than Boris as both Major and Corbyn appeared interested in what I was saying whereas Boris only seemed interested in Boris.
The politicians that get to the top, in any party, tend to have good people skills and be relatively easy to get on with; they have needed to be, in their path up the greasy pole. Many backbenchers are however as unpleasant in person as you would imagine; for the many sitting in safe seats, the only people they have really ever had to impress has been a handful of party activists in their seat, many years ago.
Boris is the exception because he came in as an outsider. Boris has a magnetism that plays well for brief meetings with the public, but is not a particularly pleasant person to deal with as a politician, unless he wants something from you. And even then.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
For me the most important thing is not the sum it is the percentage.
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63% If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75% If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
I agree, but be wary. The only way to reduce the taper rate, without spending a lot more money, is to reduce the basic amount paid before applying the taper, or to introduce the start of the taper at a lower level.
Both those things make the effective tax rate better, but make the very poorest people poorer.
Perhaps though I would argue that the Laffer Curve would be in play here.
You can argue whether a tax rate is to the left or right of the peak of the Laffer Curve but effective 90% rates must be to the right of many people's peak of the curve.
The Laffer Curve does not just effect the richest in society it can apply to the poorest too.
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
What constitutes London is a question to which there is no answer and certainly not one which will get agreement or consistency. Personally I like to keep it simple so inside M25=London, outside not London for me.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
It is remarkable how some people are so devoid of empathy. They simply assert that of course you can feed a family easily on benefits, and fall back on lazy stereotypes about booze and fags, feckless parents and the like. The poverty line for a single parent with one kid is about £200 per week after housing costs. Many millions of families on benefits including those in work are below that level, especially after post-2010 cuts. That £200 has to cover not just food but travel costs, clothing including school uniform, utilities, school trips, furniture and appliances, internet access and phone bills, and any sudden and lumpy costs like repairing your car. It's really not hard to see how that leaves many struggling to provide food at times, and indeed it is easy to find accounts by those affected explaining in great detail. And yet, through sheer arrogance and lack of empathy, people who have never wondered how they will stretch the last tenner to the end of the week, or how they will afford a winter coat for their child, or seen their kid bring the only one in her class who doesn't go on the school trip, are happy to bleat on about how people just need to be better at budgeting. It's really disgusting, and I don't blame you for moving to Scotland, where in all honesty people actually are nicer.
The only time I ever experienced serious racism was in Scotland.
I am sorry to hear it. What happened?
Thanks, obviously well over it now. I was thirteen in Dumfries. Weekend shopping trip. Four local boys heard me asking for something in WHSmith with an English accent.
They then followed me down a side alley and one of them punched me in the side of my face calling me a "English c**t" whilst laughing.
I didn't react just wriggled free and escaped to the police station, who were understanding and sympathetic - and found the incident on CCTV - but couldn't do anything.
That is sad to hear, I am glad to hear you are OK. I am assuming you are white (based solely on the relative prevalence in the population) in which case it is perhaps easy to see why you would not have been likely to experience any comparable racism in England, being part of the majority population (apologies if this assumption is wide of the mark). Your assailants sound like the worst kind of ignorant small town neds, of which unfortunately there are a few. My family are English so I certainly experienced a bit of this on a minor scale when I was young. It's not widespread. My wife is Asian and grew up in England and undoubtedly experienced worse racism in her childhood than either you or I experienced in Scotland, not to belittle your experience.
Agreed, and that's a fair post. I just think making carte-blanche assertions about niceness or race by nation or ethnicity isn't helpful. Of course the salience varies.
Kids can be cruel, of course, but, in my experience, these attitudes tend to start from the parents.
I think we can all remember occasions when kids who were 'different' turned up at school and had a hard time.
One point I saw made recently that made me pause was how the Scots don't have a slang word for the English equivalent to 'jocks'. They don't refer to the 'poms' and sassenachs is hardly common currency.
Sassenachs is probably used as much relatively (remember there are 8 times more English to say "jock" than scots to say sassenachs. Also if you live in England you will of course think that jocks is more prevalent (as its the english saying it ).
As an example of living in the wrong country to hear such slang I only heard out loud last week the term "gog" which i believe is a slang term used by South Welsh to refer to North Welsh. Some South Welsh bloke came to our office and rather diplomatically (not!) accused our welsh receptionist of being a "gog" as she spoke Welsh. She laughed it off and all the non-welsh around were bemused at the whole thing
I have never heard the word Sassenach used in normal conversation in Scotland. Apart from anything else, it is the Gaelic word for Saxon and is applied equally to lowland Scots as to the English.
I'd say it would almost be used ironically today - almost as a deliberate archaism. It's more what the English think the Scots say, almost Brigadoon stuff. As you say, it is hopelessly ambiguous in usage (like 'haver', which non-Scots have misused so much that it's not safe to employ it).
It is most certainly never used nowadays at all. Haver I still use, havering is descriptive for normal use.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
As a single person depending on where you live you get almost that. For example where I live
benefits 280£ a month give or take a few pounds housing benefit £650 a month the max they pay for a single person council tax you dont have to pay 180£ a month,
Total £1110 a month for a single person no kids
Minimum wage at 8.52£ an hour 40 hours a week gives you £1477 per month which after tax and national insurances goes down to £1308 a month (havent removed the compulsory pension from it so will actually be even less)
So working full time at a min wage job you are working 160 hours a month for an extra £198, Throw in things like free prescriptions you are no longer eligible for and you can see why some decide its not worth the candle
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
To Tory Aberdeenshire?
Not for long , wipeout coming
Been there and had the T-shirt Malc. You know well if Scotland got independence a centre right party would emerge - call it whatever you want. Indeed I suspect you'd be one of its supporters.
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
What constitutes London is a question to which there is no answer and certainly not one which will get agreement or consistency. Personally I like to keep it simple so inside M25=London, outside not London for me.
So is Epping just a service station off junction 27?
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
1% answer maliciously, 2% don't know and don't care and have just guessed wronly 4% have lived in South England for less than 2 years. They have heard of Reading but never got a train from Paddington or driven on the M4, so they don't realise how far out it is.
But yes it does concur with studies that show 3-5 percentage points any possible answer are just noise.
Obviously we have no idea about any pre-existing medical condition she might have had, however she isn't really very old and appears from that photo to be in good shape i.e. definitely not some massive obese fatty of a 40 odd year old and not a doctor on the frontline getting the massive expose doses of the plague.
Thanks. She looks quite different between the two videos.
One line that struck me in the new one is that 2014 does feel like a lifetime ago, a generation ago. I know on traditional definitions it isn't of course but it certainly does feel it, quite a clever line to use.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll despite their most recent national polling in the midterms being massively wrong, being the only pollster to tip a GOP win when the Dems actually won by 8.4%.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that the correct polls are those that give the best results for Trump?
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
As a single person depending on where you live you get almost that. For example where I live
benefits 280£ a month give or take a few pounds housing benefit £650 a month the max they pay for a single person council tax you dont have to pay 180£ a month,
Total £1110 a month for a single person no kids
Minimum wage at 8.52£ an hour 40 hours a week gives you £1477 per month which after tax and national insurances goes down to £1308 a month (havent removed the compulsory pension from it so will actually be even less)
So working full time at a min wage job you are working 160 hours a month for an extra £198, Throw in things like free prescriptions you are no longer eligible for and you can see why some decide its not worth the candle
That just shows you how messed up the housing system in this country is. Over 50% of income on rent. But as long as QE is pumping up asset prices ...
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
As a single person depending on where you live you get almost that. For example where I live
benefits 280£ a month give or take a few pounds housing benefit £650 a month the max they pay for a single person council tax you dont have to pay 180£ a month,
Total £1110 a month for a single person no kids
Minimum wage at 8.52£ an hour 40 hours a week gives you £1477 per month which after tax and national insurances goes down to £1308 a month (havent removed the compulsory pension from it so will actually be even less)
So working full time at a min wage job you are working 160 hours a month for an extra £198, Throw in things like free prescriptions you are no longer eligible for and you can see why some decide its not worth the candle
Also extra travel costs, increased food costs for those who dont plan packed lunches. And the extra time for those not working would allow them to drive down prices by taking more advantage of moneysavingexpert style offers, vouchers etc which can make a substantial difference to the cost of living.
Thanks. She looks quite different between the two videos.
One line that struck me in the new one is that 2014 does feel like a lifetime ago, a generation ago. I know on traditional definitions it isn't of course but it certainly does feel it, quite a clever line to use.
I think another clever line is 'It all just seems clearer now'.
I am distraught that you do not instantly recognise Patronising BT Lady.
As she has now backed both sides of the debate, can I say without offending anyone too much that she seems fingers-down-a-blackboard scale patronising ?
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
I am distraught that you do not instantly recognise Patronising BT Lady.
As she has now backed both sides of the debate, can I say without offending anyone too much that she seems fingers-down-a-blackboard scale patronising ?
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
What constitutes London is a question to which there is no answer and certainly not one which will get agreement or consistency. Personally I like to keep it simple so inside M25=London, outside not London for me.
Neither Londoners nor British officialdom agree on the London borders anyway. I grew up in a London Borough, which according to the Post Office is in Kent and quite a large area of London has a similar 'dual status' between county and borough.
Thanks G. An interesting dozen from M Consult there. Two are stand-out favorites for Trump backers - Ohio and Arizona. The rest are middling to good for Biden. Texas is a blinder. Go Joe, go! The Lone Star State is yours for the taking.
*Without* the cost of your mortgage. Problem is that low paid jobs / UC mean you have to pay your bills. Its not just a crisis for the bottom decile, the "squeezed middle" struggle to cope with some of the absurdly high costs of living we face in the UK.
Our local Citizens Advice has been swamped by squeezed middle people dropped onto UC thanks to the loss of their job. From the anecdotes I have heard what they can get - or usually can't get - has been a real shock.
The study found nearly half the people rejected for unemployment benefits between March and July reported increased financial strains, while more than half reported problems with mental health, and around one in six said they had struggled to afford food."
"Roughly half those rejected were graduates, and a third were in professional or managerial jobs, the study found. Over half reported losing at least 25% of their household income. Nearly two-thirds said they were unsure how they would cope financially when they heard they did not qualify for benefits."
"The study, by the Economic and Social Research Council-funded Benefits at a Social Distance project, found nearly three-quarters were surprised when they were refused benefits, or said it was “unfair”."
Bet many of them were similar to ones on here , used to calling people on benefits scroungers , layabouts etc. Getting a bit of education and hands on experience will do them no harm.
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
What constitutes London is a question to which there is no answer and certainly not one which will get agreement or consistency. Personally I like to keep it simple so inside M25=London, outside not London for me.
So is Epping just a service station off junction 27?
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
But are you a pollster ?
I polled a handful of American friends.
Published methodology, even. We could use you to average out the Trafalgar results.
I am distraught that you do not instantly recognise Patronising BT Lady.
As she has now backed both sides of the debate, can I say without offending anyone too much that she seems fingers-down-a-blackboard scale patronising ?
On topic, my accurate, tested, and flawless prediction for the Presidential election is that there is a 100% chance that one of Trump or Biden will win.
But are you a pollster ?
I polled a handful of American friends.
Published methodology, even. We could use you to average out the Trafalgar results.
Well it is 6-3 split in VI for Biden but a 5-4 split in those who expect Biden to win.
That's presented as a joke, but in fact being able to u-turn calmly is probably a useful skill, if one that you may not want to do as often as they have.
Comments
It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
If you arte on one of the outer estates or country villages and can';t afford transport you are utterly screwed.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1319232801061949440
That's quite big news and he joins the ranks of other intellectuals down the years who have gone without fear or favour where their principles take them.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
This was basically what was the point of difference. That GM needed more cash because they'd been in Tier 2 longer.
https://twitter.com/macroibin/status/1317152992404058112?s=20
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63%
If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75%
If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
Whoever comes up with an analogous solution to the Brexit knot will be genuinely deserving of all our thanks.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1319234649751695360?s=20
https://twitter.com/MarcoGBiagi/status/1319232531569336322
Why are there no betting markets on this?
If you go down the list comparing the lightweight, generally weak CVs of the current cabinet and then compare with the shadow cabinet, you begin to feel that there is simply no beginning to the list of Tory talents.
As a neutral in this fight I would just note that, amongst others,
Nick Thomas-Symonds Eats Priti Patel
David Lammy is often very impressive- even though I disagree with his views, he commands respect
Anneliese Dodds is an academic heavyweight who is already pushing Sunak around a bit and the Labour treasury team overall is extremely solid.
Kate Green is another solid figure at education as Williamson flounders
Ed Miliband is wounding Alok Sharma quite regularly at business
The fact is that figures like Rees Mogg, Hancock, Wiliamson, Raab are also, to coin a phrase much used by my Tory friends, "NBG".
Starmer is playing a long game, and allowing Johnson to make his own mistakes, the first of which was selecting a cabinet of "zero to low wattage".
BTW that is also a quote from a Tory friend. The fact is that most Tory MPs are perfectly well aware that the cabinet is overall a D- which is yet another reason why they are so glum.
Activist in Spiderman outfit is arrested after scaling Parliament scaffolding to unfurl banner muddled with slogans from XR, BLM, LGBT, All Lives Matter and many more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8867065/Activist-scales-Big-Ben-scaffolding-unfurl-giant-banner.html
https://twitter.com/shirkerism/status/1319219284661456896?s=20
Both those things make the effective tax rate better, but make the very poorest people poorer.
https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/partone/
And then note that the numbers registering for free school meals have increased by something around a million in the last six months.
Without the resources of government, it would be difficult to provide the comprehensive data you'd like, I suspect.
As for efficacy, you might take a look at the US food stamp program. It's obviously only a rough analogue, but again without dedicated research into what is an new and immediate need, I don't really know how you might quickly answer that question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program#Impact
Anti-pineapplers are basically atrophied wastrels, an evolutionary dead-end, a societal wrong turn, an error.
BJ is a shallow, self-obsessed, lying charlatan in the flesh, just like on TV, although he does exude a kind of needy charisma that certainly charms a lot of people. I've met five PMs in total: Callaghan and Major came across best - the only ones who didn't attend Oxford University or private school.
If any of them are good at more than one of the three they probably do not end up in politics!
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
USC Dornsife GE
Biden 53% (-)
Trump 42% (-)
Changes from yesterday.
Morning Consult GE
Biden 52% (-)
Trump 43% (-)
Changes from 18th October.
Morning Consult Wisconsin
Biden 54%
Trump 42%
Morning Consult Texas (Kaboom)
Biden 48%
Trump 47%
Morning Consult South Carolina
Biden 45%
Trump 51%
Morning Consult Pennsylvania
Biden 52%
Trump 43%
Morning Consult Ohio
Biden 47%
Trump 49%
Morning Consult North Carolina
Biden 50%
Trump 47%
Morning Consult Minnesota
Biden 51%
Trump 42%
Morning Consult Michigan
Biden 52%
Trump 44%
Morning Consult Georgia
Biden 48%
Trump 48%
Morning Consult Florida
Biden 52%
Trump 45%
Morning Consult Colorado
Biden 55%
Trump 39%
Morning Consult Arizona
Biden 47%
Trump 48%
SurveyUSA Minnesota
Biden 48% (+1)
Trump 42% (+2)
Changes from 6th October
Trafalgar Michigan (Kaboom?)
Biden 45% (-1)
Trump 47% (-)
Changes from 15th October
Public Policy Institute of California California
Biden 58%
Trump 32%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLAewTVmkAU
Boris is the exception because he came in as an outsider. Boris has a magnetism that plays well for brief meetings with the public, but is not a particularly pleasant person to deal with as a politician, unless he wants something from you. And even then.
You can argue whether a tax rate is to the left or right of the peak of the Laffer Curve but effective 90% rates must be to the right of many people's peak of the curve.
The Laffer Curve does not just effect the richest in society it can apply to the poorest too.
https://twitter.com/richard_kaputt/status/1319241737580253185?s=20
https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon/status/1319241973090353152?s=20
benefits 280£ a month give or take a few pounds
housing benefit £650 a month the max they pay for a single person
council tax you dont have to pay 180£ a month,
Total £1110 a month for a single person no kids
Minimum wage at 8.52£ an hour 40 hours a week
gives you £1477 per month which after tax and national insurances goes down to £1308 a month (havent removed the compulsory pension from it so will actually be even less)
So working full time at a min wage job you are working 160 hours a month for an extra £198, Throw in things like free prescriptions you are no longer eligible for and you can see why some decide its not worth the candle
2% don't know and don't care and have just guessed wronly
4% have lived in South England for less than 2 years. They have heard of Reading but never got a train from Paddington or driven on the M4, so they don't realise how far out it is.
But yes it does concur with studies that show 3-5 percentage points any possible answer are just noise.
Apparently we have no plan to shrink the deficit.
Ain;t that the effing truth,
Is a warning to everybody.
One line that struck me in the new one is that 2014 does feel like a lifetime ago, a generation ago. I know on traditional definitions it isn't of course but it certainly does feel it, quite a clever line to use.
Edit - He might even have been Rishi's agent in 2015.
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll despite their most recent national polling in the midterms being massively wrong, being the only pollster to tip a GOP win when the Dems actually won by 8.4%.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that the correct polls are those that give the best results for Trump?
Over 50% of income on rent. But as long as QE is pumping up asset prices ...
Crazy name, crazy guy !!
#contrarianlogic
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/rasmussen_reports_calls_it_right
That would be why she doesn't look the same.
I grew up in a London Borough, which according to the Post Office is in Kent and quite a large area of London has a similar 'dual status' between county and borough.
Texas
Cornyn (R) 46%
Hegar (D) 41%
South Carolina
Harrison (D) 47%
Graham (R) 45%
North Carolina
Cunningham (D) 48%
Tillis (R) 42%
Georgia
Perdue (R) 46%
Ossoff (D) 44%
Colorado
Hickenlooper (D) 50%
Gardner (R) 42%
Arizona
Kelly (D) 48%
McSally (R) 44%
Michigan
Peters (D) 48%
James (R) 42%
and for balance...
Michigan Trafalgar Flavour
James (R) 52%
Peters (D) 48%
Thanks G. An interesting dozen from M Consult there. Two are stand-out favorites for Trump backers - Ohio and Arizona. The rest are middling to good for Biden. Texas is a blinder. Go Joe, go! The Lone Star State is yours for the taking.
Jaime Harrison on Lindsey Graham postponing debate: 'He's on the verge of getting that one-way ticket back home
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/522144-jaime-harrison-on-lindsey-graham-postponed-debate-hes-on-the-verge-of
Still wondering if my out and out gamble on Harrison might pay off.
https://twitter.com/restorationpac/status/1319239578339823616?s=20
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1319220703112032259?s=20
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1319235802874941441?s=20
Morning Consult though has Biden ahead in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1319247135884242945?s=20
We could use you to average out the Trafalgar results.
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.