Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why are the Tories leading in the polls? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 19 in General
imageWhy are the Tories leading in the polls? – politicalbetting.com

The Tories have been ahead in the polls for months now and by significant margins. Sure, they lost Chesham & Amersham and failed by a tiny number of votes to win back Batley & Spen, both disappointments and, in the case of the former, a possible warning sign. But even so the polls are stuck with the Tories hovering around the 40% mark, sometimes up to 43% and Labour around 30%. Why might this be?

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823
    First. A feature not a bug, indeed.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,099
    Second jab?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,726
    Very good article Cyclefree.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970
    A good, but rather depressing read for those of us who want rid of Boris.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651
    Very good indeed.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,645
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,099
    The list in the header is a good one. We always have to keep reminding ourselves that in England and Wales there is in effect a binary choice. I think that the negatives against Labour are the reason for the sustained Tory lead. It is partly that the world has changed but mainly because Labour has changed.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    Get everyone to pay it, including the oldies, and it might wash.

    After all this is for care when you're in your early 80s for the last 2-3 years of your life.
    Except that NI, of course, is conveniently not paid by pensioners.
    That's my point. You'd have to extend NI to pensioners (at least at 2% levels) for this to wash.

    As an aside, I don't like tax rises on working people. Last thing they need.
    I'd introduce a 10% additional income tax rate on defined benefit pensions schemes phased in over 10 years at an additional 1% per year. Essentially the government recouping the cost of public sector DB schemes on the other side.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,779
    It’s not enough that the government is rubbish*, the opposition has to demonstrate that it is much better.

    Starmer isn’t very good, and that’s why the Tories are ahead in the polls.

    * I don’t think this one is, though the big test is approaching.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,645
    Exclusive: ‘pingdemic’ at the heart of government grows after Saj positive

    🏠PM’s chief of staff Dan Rosenfield self-isolating after ping

    🏠 Health minister Ed Agar (brief includes Covid) self-isolating

    🏠 Health minister Lord Bethell working from home

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/19/boris-johnsons-chief-staff-ministers-self-isolate-government/

    Scores of health dep officials are also isolating after Sajid Javid’s positive. One source in the department told me some are avoiding going into the office for fear of getting Covid / getting pinged.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    All good points. Boris has simply united the Right around him, for now.

    I can see all sorts of ways a chunk of that could splinter off to a new right in years to come, though, with some swing voters moving to LD and Labour as well.

    2019 provides an abject lesson in how quickly that can come about.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823
    Scott_xP said:
    Scott_xP said:
    "He said removing the exemption for pensioners to pay national insurance would be unpopular and only raise half a billion pounds a year."

    'Unpopular'. With Tory party members. Who will be voting for Ersatz Johnson (as the Kriegsmarine used to put such things) in a year or two.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    Scott_xP said:
    The Guardian and The Sun?

    It's being deliberately trailed.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,645
    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970
    I have to say that Keith is a huge disappointment. He tries to play the "serious politician for serious times" role but then he's on twitter making unserious comments about the "Johnson variant" which is completely ridiculous. Keith, mate, you're not going make it happen. The WHO has called it delta, the public and media know it as delta.

    Labour needs to find a new leader ASAP who the public trusts on Brexit, cultural issues and the economy. Labour are behind on all three areas by a huge distance IMO and won't win until all three areas are addressed. Waiting for Boris to fall doesn't help because Rishi is even more ruthless and politically savvy.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,645
    It is going to be a hard sell to say that it is the tax that pensioners don't pay that will be the one to rise. But that seems to be the current state of play.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/19/ministers-mull-national-insurance-rise-to-fund-social-care
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,099
    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    The economics of an aging population really does suck.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Scott_xP said:
    "He said removing the exemption for pensioners to pay national insurance would be unpopular and only raise half a billion pounds a year."

    'Unpopular'. With Tory party members. Who will be voting for Ersatz Johnson (as the Kriegsmarine used to put such things) in a year or two.
    Mollycoddling pensioners is the one thing that truly pisses me off about this current administration.
    And add the IHT rules, too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970

    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).

    Tax rich pensioners properly. It's the only sane answer. Any pensioner in the higher rate tax bracket can afford to pay much more tax.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,099
    kle4 said:

    Long Corbyn sounds like a very debilitating condition.

    It would have been as a gambling position.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    edited July 19
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Scott_xP said:
    "He said removing the exemption for pensioners to pay national insurance would be unpopular and only raise half a billion pounds a year."

    'Unpopular'. With Tory party members. Who will be voting for Ersatz Johnson (as the Kriegsmarine used to put such things) in a year or two.
    Mollycoddling pensioners is the one thing that truly pisses me off about this current administration.
    And add the IHT rules, too.
    I'm ok with IHT cuts. No-one likes IHT.

    But, I essentially think Theresa May's proposal was basically right - albeit she sold it shitly, because she was shit.

    If you have masses of asset wealth it should be expected you might need to use some of them to fund your care in your old age.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823
    MaxPB said:

    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).

    Tax rich pensioners properly. It's the only sane answer. Any pensioner in the higher rate tax bracket can afford to pay much more tax.
    Yet any Tory leader who does that cuts their own throat, metaphotically.

    Vide Mrs May and the dementia tax.
  • AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464
    FPT:
    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,658
    Scott_xP said:

    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288

    Hello delta. Where’ve we seen that before?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say that Keith is a huge disappointment. He tries to play the "serious politician for serious times" role but then he's on twitter making unserious comments about the "Johnson variant" which is completely ridiculous. Keith, mate, you're not going make it happen. The WHO has called it delta, the public and media know it as delta.

    Labour needs to find a new leader ASAP who the public trusts on Brexit, cultural issues and the economy. Labour are behind on all three areas by a huge distance IMO and won't win until all three areas are addressed. Waiting for Boris to fall doesn't help because Rishi is even more ruthless and politically savvy.

    I could be tempted by a Labour or LD party along the lines you suggest that takes the pensioners sweets and toys away.

    The supreme selfishness of some of them, and whinging at the merest hint of paying a bean for anything, beggars belief.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Scott_xP said:
    "He said removing the exemption for pensioners to pay national insurance would be unpopular and only raise half a billion pounds a year."

    'Unpopular'. With Tory party members. Who will be voting for Ersatz Johnson (as the Kriegsmarine used to put such things) in a year or two.
    Mollycoddling pensioners is the one thing that truly pisses me off about this current administration.
    And add the IHT rules, too.
    I'm ok with IHT cuts. No-one likes IHT.

    But, I essentially think Theresa May's proposal was basically right - albeit she sold it shitly, because she was shit.

    If you have masses of asset wealth it should be expected you might need to use some of them to fund your care in your old age.
    Take it from fat cat public sector pension holders. They are ripe for higher rates and it's not as if they can easily shelter the income from a defined benefit scheme into a tax haven. Put DB tax rates up to 30% and 50% over a period of 10 years, sit back and watch them bitch about how they're seeing their retirement income go down from 60k to 55k and let the country shrug it's collective shoulders like it did for the WASPI women.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say that Keith is a huge disappointment. He tries to play the "serious politician for serious times" role but then he's on twitter making unserious comments about the "Johnson variant" which is completely ridiculous. Keith, mate, you're not going make it happen. The WHO has called it delta, the public and media know it as delta.

    Labour needs to find a new leader ASAP who the public trusts on Brexit, cultural issues and the economy. Labour are behind on all three areas by a huge distance IMO and won't win until all three areas are addressed. Waiting for Boris to fall doesn't help because Rishi is even more ruthless and politically savvy.

    I could be tempted by a Labour or LD party along the lines you suggest that takes the pensioners sweets and toys away.

    The supreme selfishness of some of them, and whinging at the merest hint of paying a bean for anything, beggars belief.
    How old are you (to the nearest decade), might one possibly inquire?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited July 19

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    1% tax rise in National Insurance being a 2% tax rise of course. 😡👎
    Why is 1% NI 2% tax rise?

    Anyway, disagreement with this policy without putting forward alternative policy is not acceptable - the financial black hole extent of this problem going forward, quirks and unfairness in current arrangement has to be addressed. So no nitpicking of what Boris government supported in key votes by Labour are going to push through, the status quo has to improve, you can only object presenting an alternative.

    Having said that, I think something is being missed here - the Sun focussing on the election busting tax hike, but what I want to know, in the plan has to be a basement figure, dimnot had it at 50K May at 100, this whole thing won’t be funded by tax alone, so what is the basement figure?

    The Torys are ahead because Boris is having a brilliant week. The lefty’s in this room loved his levelling up speech; he used Freedom Day to reveal his Covid passport plan, polls will show huge majority for extending the passport for entering all pubs and indoor social spaces this winter; and Boris is on the verge of getting something very similar to May’s plan for sorting out social care funding through the commons, after the next queens speech.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 1,914
    Could chuck in a nightclub tax whilst we're at it
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).

    Tax rich pensioners properly. It's the only sane answer. Any pensioner in the higher rate tax bracket can afford to pay much more tax.
    Yet any Tory leader who does that cuts their own throat, metaphotically.

    Vide Mrs May and the dementia tax.
    Yes, the present day Conservative Party may have boxed themselves into a corner here they simply can't escape.

    Which is an opportunity for a competent and moderate Labour Party, and quite literally it can leverage the main word in its title there to ram the message home.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Scott_xP said:

    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288

    Hello delta. Where’ve we seen that before?
    all Boris's fault according to the grey man aka Keith
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    My eldest tells me the Lib Dems have pledged to fight any requirement for a vaccine passport for clubs - he is now voting yellow
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,961
    I think Philip answered that.

    "Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness"

    To UKIP/Tories he ticks all the boxes. The bigger the shit the more they like him and shits don't come much bigger.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,976
    edited July 19
    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say that Keith is a huge disappointment. He tries to play the "serious politician for serious times" role but then he's on twitter making unserious comments about the "Johnson variant" which is completely ridiculous. Keith, mate, you're not going make it happen. The WHO has called it delta, the public and media know it as delta.

    Labour needs to find a new leader ASAP who the public trusts on Brexit, cultural issues and the economy. Labour are behind on all three areas by a huge distance IMO and won't win until all three areas are addressed. Waiting for Boris to fall doesn't help because Rishi is even more ruthless and politically savvy.

    I could be tempted by a Labour or LD party along the lines you suggest that takes the pensioners sweets and toys away.

    The supreme selfishness of some of them, and whinging at the merest hint of paying a bean for anything, beggars belief.
    How old are you (to the nearest decade), might one possibly inquire?
    Three. Well, four.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,567
    MaxPB said:

    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).

    Tax rich pensioners properly. It's the only sane answer. Any pensioner in the higher rate tax bracket can afford to pay much more tax.
    How many pensioners are in the higher rate tax bracket?

    I got 30 yrs teaching in and barely breach the personal allowance.

    When I get my state pension it will be barely be halfway to the 40% zone!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,419
    edited July 19
    Absolutely hits the nail on the head - thank you Cyclefree.

    Politics is not about whether you are any good, it's about whether you are better than the other lot. There is nothing at all affirmatively to vote Labour for. I think this lack of policy and direction, usually described as waiting until nearer the election, is a mistake.

    There are open goals in this penalty shoot out.

    Labour need to do better than the Tories on: social care, the medium and long term plan for the Brexit future, Covid - obviously-, tax, the United Kingdom, integrity and moderation, civil liberties, crime, housing, and so on. They don't need to do well, they just need to do better than the other lot. This is the bread and butter of politics. It's the LOTO's one big job.

    When the Tories actually on DAY ONE of the 'no Covid laws' announce they are introducing Covid laws and Labour can't make mincemeat of it, both parties have a problem but Labour have the bigger one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823
    Roger said:

    I think Philip answered that.

    "Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness"

    To UKIP/Tories he ticks all the boxes. The bigger the shit the more they like him and shits don't come much bigger.

    I am unaccountably reminded of this little movie (indeed, movement):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG78zsdgB7U
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,798
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say that Keith is a huge disappointment. He tries to play the "serious politician for serious times" role but then he's on twitter making unserious comments about the "Johnson variant" which is completely ridiculous. Keith, mate, you're not going make it happen. The WHO has called it delta, the public and media know it as delta.

    Labour needs to find a new leader ASAP who the public trusts on Brexit, cultural issues and the economy. Labour are behind on all three areas by a huge distance IMO and won't win until all three areas are addressed. Waiting for Boris to fall doesn't help because Rishi is even more ruthless and politically savvy.

    Interesting that Starmer's biggest critics are a cabal of Corbynites and Johnsonian Tories. Yes, Starmer is underwhelming, but the party becomes even more unelectable when someone like Richard Burgon or RLB becomes leader.

    Both the Corbynites and the Johnsonian Tories are happy with such an outcome, as Labour become even more hopelessly unelectable and remain is perpetual opposition.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    Using the dashboard figures it comes to about 98%, however we also know that the dashboard includes anyone who tested positive that died which at current rates for the double jabbed cohort is going to have a large proportion of actuarial deaths. Additionally if someone aged 90+ dies of COVID I don't know how that figures into your calculations but it really shouldn't. I'd be shocked if more than 1 or 2 double jabbed people per day were truly dying of COVID at the moment and not just people who had it when they died or were already in death's waiting room.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823

    MaxPB said:

    Any tax rises should not just apply to workers! I strongly agree. If only the Tories hadn't followed the tradition started by Blair / Brown in ruling out income tax rises. If they had any guts there would be a big restructuring of tax. Only a government with a large majority can attempt this as losers are motivated more than winners (not that there would be many of those given need to raise revenue).

    Tax rich pensioners properly. It's the only sane answer. Any pensioner in the higher rate tax bracket can afford to pay much more tax.
    How many pensioners are in the higher rate tax bracket?

    I got 30 yrs teaching in and barely breach the personal allowance.

    When I get my state pension it will be barely be halfway to the 40% zone!
    Retired Tory MPs and Cabinet Ministers? (and other parties too to be fair: but more of them than others, obvs.)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,798
    MaxPB said:

    A good, but rather depressing read for those of us who want rid of Boris.

    You want rid of Boris?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,422

    Scott_xP said:

    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288

    Hello delta. Where’ve we seen that before?
    France has got Beta too. Apparently.

    Alpha Delta Beta. A veritable sorority of Covid variants.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,761
    edited July 19
    Scott_xP said:

    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288

    France isn't testing as much, but their positivity rate has doubled in the last few days.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,666
    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -






  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613
    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 991
    DavidL said:

    As I have been pointing out the last several days the economy is recovering fast, jobs are being created very fast, wages are rising fast, areas of the country which have traditionally trailed behind London and the SE are doing better relatively. Vaccines remain a success story. The rest is just piss and wind in the echo chambers of Twitter where the hostile convince themselves with ever more bile that the end is certain and surely, inevitably, people will come to their senses and see that they were right all along.

    I am genuinely struggling to see how Boris does not win the next election. It would require the wheels to come off in an almost biblical way. And for SKS to start sounding like an alternative instead of an echo chamber.

    A lot can happen in 3 years. And whilst there is some success, the government doesn't look particularly stable in comparison to its predecessors. Lots of unknowns. The conservatives have been in power for over a decade.
    I've thought for a while, that for all of the above reasons the prospect of a labour government being elected in the near future is much higher than the odds suggest.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,504
    Scott_xP said:

    French govt spokesman says country seeing a wave that’s faster and steeper…”cases have doubled in a week, surpassing 10,000 positives a day.” https://twitter.com/franceinfo/status/1417190969192161288

    Paging Roger.....
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,061
    I can't disagree with much of the header, and Labour clearly has a mountain to climb.

    However, on item 5 (Levelling up Promises) I'm rather ambivalent. The discourse that associates "levelling up" with the current government is powerful. But I don't believe levelling up is anything new. All my political life governments of all persuasions have said "we have to tackle the north-south divide", even Thatcher's. All have failed. Remember, for example, Regional development Agencies, and then Learning and Skills Councils? It will be interesting to see if, this time, the reality matches the rhetoric. But levelling up isn't anything new.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613
    Arent the Tories now offering NHS staff a higher pay rise than Labour want?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,332
    DougSeal said:

    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -






    I'm guessing an even bigger lead in the polls?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,752
    edited July 19
    They are leading because the vast majority of Leave voters now back the Tories after UKIP and the BXP have collapsed.

    Meanwhile the Remain vote is split between Labour, the LDs, the Greens and the SNP.

    So under FPTP the Tories have it all set up nicely for them
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970
    DougSeal said:

    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -

    ...snip...


    What's the meaning of the 3.5% in their twitter names?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,752
    Scott_xP said:
    Better than another dementia tax
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,970
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    Get everyone to pay it, including the oldies, and it might wash.

    After all this is for care when you're in your early 80s for the last 2-3 years of your life.
    Except that NI, of course, is conveniently not paid by pensioners.
    That's my point. You'd have to extend NI to pensioners (at least at 2% levels) for this to wash.

    As an aside, I don't like tax rises on working people. Last thing they need.
    I'd introduce a 10% additional income tax rate on defined benefit pensions schemes phased in over 10 years at an additional 1% per year. Essentially the government recouping the cost of public sector DB schemes on the other side.
    Why should beneficiaries of private sector DB schemes be penalised?

    The scheme my mother is in was funded entirely by employer contributions and is currently in surplus.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,877
    Excellent and refreshing article Cyclefree. Good to see something showing the other side.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    1. Yes - 2 years of bickering was fun in a morbid way, and an important test of our politics and constitution, but putting an end to it was bound to have enduring positive effects. It will take time for that to fade.

    2. I'm not sure it really works but kudos for use of mephistophelean. I'd be less irritated by the 'Boris is not perfect' stuff or about voters not caring about the same things as wonks, were it not for the quite unnecessary stuff. Just because people don't care about standards doesn't mean we have to give them low standards.

    3. Yes, a win. I don't think voters do gratitude, but in the immediate term it is a reminder of a success.

    4. How much the Tories have gone right is disputed, but I think it is correct that there is no significant bleedage in that direction for the Tories. United, they are hard to beat.

    5. I honestly have no idea if this really connects with people. A town near me has had funds earmarked and went further LD in May. But perhaps the right talk does keep on those who made a jump to support and are inclined to respond well to such promises.

    6. Eh, maybe. I don't think anyone among normal people ever really cared about inconsistencies. The expulsions were definitely ruthless, but doing whatever seems to have support just seems flexible.

    7. I think lots of people vote for parties which, policy wise, don't really align to what they say they support, though I'm wary of accusing people of having false consciousness. But it seems clear some in the right places were trending Tory for some time, and enough made the plunge a once. There's some movement among others in the opposite direction, but it needs to be a lot and in the right places, so for the medium term the Tories benefit.

    8. Starmer's doing what he can, I'm very surprised he has not restored the whip to Corbyn, but fundamentally it's a serious problem when some still love the Corbyn project and others want to forget it ever happened. I guess time is all that can resolve that?

    9. I've never really been sure how to make a non-invisible shadow cabinet. They do get out there, as does here. How to grab attention? How to make the team appear strong? (being strong would be a bonus). He's clearly trying, so is he just inadequate? He's not bombastic, but some argue that will be what people want next, but I'm not sure if that's so - I think for now people do still want big personalities.

    10. No it hasn't. Some have made the optimism vs pessimism argument, but that seems a bit simplistic and surely oppositions have to be able to be very critical without being 'pessimistic'. But why everyone argues where the line is, perhaps there is a line - when things seem, well, OK, constant bemoaning of things being especially bad strikes a dissnonant note. It's not that people dislike pessimism, perhaps, but they do look around and just think that things are not as claimed, in which case the sunnier vision is technically closer.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,516
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Better than another dementia tax
    Money needs to be found somehow.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 199
    edited July 19
    gealbhan said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    1% tax rise in National Insurance being a 2% tax rise of course. 😡👎
    Why is 1% NI 2% tax rise?

    Anyway, disagreement with this policy without putting forward alternative policy is not acceptable - the financial black hole extent of this problem going forward, quirks and unfairness in current arrangement has to be addressed. So no nitpicking of what Boris government supported in key votes by Labour are going to push through, the status quo has to improve, you can only object presenting an alternative.

    Having said that, I think something is being missed here - the Sun focussing on the election busting tax hike, but what I want to know, in the plan has to be a basement figure, dimnot had it at 50K May at 100, this whole thing won’t be funded by tax alone, so what is the basement figure?

    The Torys are ahead because Boris is having a brilliant week. The lefty’s in this room loved his levelling up speech; he used Freedom Day to reveal his Covid passport plan, polls will show huge majority for extending the passport for entering all pubs and indoor social spaces this winter; and Boris is on the verge of getting something very similar to May’s plan for sorting out social care funding through the commons, after the next queens speech.
    Alternative ideas for funding social care properly:

    1) Scrap triple lock and up-rate pensions by inflation only going forward. Will save a large amount this year (and therefore every year thereafter) with earnings growth likely to outstrip inflation by so much.

    2) Merge NI and income tax to apply to all income equally, i.e. pensioners pay their fair share.

    3) Replace council tax with an annual property tax that is collected nationally with much higher rates for more expensive properties and the option of deferment on the sale/transfer of the estate for cash poor owners.

    ...rather than the workers with little or no wealth shouldering all the burden.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,798

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,970
    Scott_xP said:

    It is going to be a hard sell to say that it is the tax that pensioners don't pay that will be the one to rise. But that seems to be the current state of play.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/19/ministers-mull-national-insurance-rise-to-fund-social-care

    I’ve actually got sympathy for that.

    Prior generations of politicians screwed the pooch. People have made retirement decisions based on the funding scheme as was.

    I think the current generation needs to be paying into a fund (how about calling it a National Insurance Fund) to find their social care. And the catch up should be through general taxation
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,761
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -

    ...snip...


    What's the meaning of the 3.5% in their twitter names?
    It's based on a theory that in only takes a committed minority 3.5% of people in a society to enforce its will...

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,970

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    By the way did you get the vanilla mail I sent a while back? Never got a reply but read on here the other day that posts were disappearing
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,806
    Floater said:

    My eldest tells me the Lib Dems have pledged to fight any requirement for a vaccine passport for clubs - he is now voting yellow

    LibDems finally have something to seriously campaign on that will get attention.

    Vaccine passport is a digital id in all but name, the uses of which will widened every year whilst every senior politician tell us they have no plan to do x or y with it.

    Beggars belief that is Johnson of all people, the old libertarian lounge lizard himself, who will go down in history as the guy who introduced them.

    I intend to resist.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613
    It's literally impossible for SKS to be more incompetent.

    Unions demand 12-15% pay rise for NHS.

    Labour demanded 2.1%.

    Tory government just awarded 3% NHS pay rise.

    Labour spokesman doesnt know whether to have a shit shave or a haircut

    No wonder they are on target for the worst defeat since 1935

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    DougSeal said:

    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -




    I hope they were just making that up performatively to get praise and didn't actually waste police time like that. I criticise the police a lot but they have better things to do than deal with a timewaster who just wants to feel good about how much they hate the government.

    Though I must say I have noticed in general a lot more people making a 'This is wrong because duty of care/environment/etc' kind of argument when insisting that something must be done, in recent years. I don't know if it is in recognition that the laws are not on their side so appeal to a higher authority for a moral cause, or laziness to find out what the rules are so declare they don't matter (apart from the one you think means they must do X)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Ratters said:

    gealbhan said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    1% tax rise in National Insurance being a 2% tax rise of course. 😡👎
    Why is 1% NI 2% tax rise?

    Anyway, disagreement with this policy without putting forward alternative policy is not acceptable - the financial black hole extent of this problem going forward, quirks and unfairness in current arrangement has to be addressed. So no nitpicking of what Boris government supported in key votes by Labour are going to push through, the status quo has to improve, you can only object presenting an alternative.

    Having said that, I think something is being missed here - the Sun focussing on the election busting tax hike, but what I want to know, in the plan has to be a basement figure, dimnot had it at 50K May at 100, this whole thing won’t be funded by tax alone, so what is the basement figure?

    The Torys are ahead because Boris is having a brilliant week. The lefty’s in this room loved his levelling up speech; he used Freedom Day to reveal his Covid passport plan, polls will show huge majority for extending the passport for entering all pubs and indoor social spaces this winter; and Boris is on the verge of getting something very similar to May’s plan for sorting out social care funding through the commons, after the next queens speech.
    Alternative ideas for funding social care properly:

    1) Scrap triple lock and up-rate pensions by inflation only going forward. Will save a large amount this year (and therefore every year thereafter) with earnings growth likely to outstrip inflation by so much.

    2) Merge NI and income tax to apply to all income equally, i.e. pensioners pay their fair share.

    3) Replace council tax with an annual property tax that is collected nationally with much higher rates for more expensive properties and the option of deferment on the sale/transfer of the estate for cash poor owners.

    ...rather than the workers with little or no wealth shouldering all the burden.
    On a surface reading, I can get behind all these proposals.
  • AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464
    MaxPB said:

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    Using the dashboard figures it comes to about 98%, however we also know that the dashboard includes anyone who tested positive that died which at current rates for the double jabbed cohort is going to have a large proportion of actuarial deaths. Additionally if someone aged 90+ dies of COVID I don't know how that figures into your calculations but it really shouldn't. I'd be shocked if more than 1 or 2 double jabbed people per day were truly dying of COVID at the moment and not just people who had it when they died or were already in death's waiting room.
    Well, reduction in mortality means reduction in mortality. I think it's clutching at straws a little to assume that the vaccinated who died were already at death's door. Maybe some were, but we don't know how many and I've seen no evidence that it's most.

    I don't know how the studies I mentioned counted deaths, but it's unlikely to be simply the dashboard numbers (actually they were overseas). The 96% reduction rate was also seen in the 45-64 cohort, who were unlikely to be at death's door.

    --AS
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613

    Ratters said:

    gealbhan said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    1% tax rise in National Insurance being a 2% tax rise of course. 😡👎
    Why is 1% NI 2% tax rise?

    Anyway, disagreement with this policy without putting forward alternative policy is not acceptable - the financial black hole extent of this problem going forward, quirks and unfairness in current arrangement has to be addressed. So no nitpicking of what Boris government supported in key votes by Labour are going to push through, the status quo has to improve, you can only object presenting an alternative.

    Having said that, I think something is being missed here - the Sun focussing on the election busting tax hike, but what I want to know, in the plan has to be a basement figure, dimnot had it at 50K May at 100, this whole thing won’t be funded by tax alone, so what is the basement figure?

    The Torys are ahead because Boris is having a brilliant week. The lefty’s in this room loved his levelling up speech; he used Freedom Day to reveal his Covid passport plan, polls will show huge majority for extending the passport for entering all pubs and indoor social spaces this winter; and Boris is on the verge of getting something very similar to May’s plan for sorting out social care funding through the commons, after the next queens speech.
    Alternative ideas for funding social care properly:

    1) Scrap triple lock and up-rate pensions by inflation only going forward. Will save a large amount this year (and therefore every year thereafter) with earnings growth likely to outstrip inflation by so much.

    2) Merge NI and income tax to apply to all income equally, i.e. pensioners pay their fair share.

    3) Replace council tax with an annual property tax that is collected nationally with much higher rates for more expensive properties and the option of deferment on the sale/transfer of the estate for cash poor owners.

    ...rather than the workers with little or no wealth shouldering all the burden.
    On a surface reading, I can get behind all these proposals.
    Me too we have a winner


    A bit radical for SKS though
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,419
    HYUFD said:

    They are leading because the vast majority of Leave voters now back the Tories after UKIP and the BXP has collapsed.

    Meanwhile the Remain vote is split between Labour, the LDs, the Greens and the SNP.

    So under FPTP the Tories have it all set up nicely for them

    Consistent subsamples indicate that it is worse than that. A recent, fairly typical, YouGov poll showed that of 2016 Remainers only 46% are supporting Labour, with Tories as the next favoured destination (23%); with the rest all over the place. 2016 Brexiteers were 70% Tory, 11% Labour and the rest all over the place.

    Tories are scoring well with both groups, Labour much less well.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 10,069
    There's an unintentional double negative in the last but two sentence.

    The Tories have one more ge win in them, under someone other than Boris, because they will as you say listen to the electorate and change accordingly and because sks and the alternative Labour leaders to sks are so unbelievably hopeless. 2028 Labour landslide under someone not currently in the frame at all.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,970
    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    Get everyone to pay it, including the oldies, and it might wash.

    After all this is for care when you're in your early 80s for the last 2-3 years of your life.
    Except that NI, of course, is conveniently not paid by pensioners.
    That's my point. You'd have to extend NI to pensioners (at least at 2% levels) for this to wash.

    As an aside, I don't like tax rises on working people. Last thing they need.
    I'd introduce a 10% additional income tax rate on defined benefit pensions schemes phased in over 10 years at an additional 1% per year. Essentially the government recouping the cost of public sector DB schemes on the other side.
    Why should beneficiaries of private sector DB schemes be penalised?

    The scheme my mother is in was funded entirely by employer contributions and is currently in surplus.
    I did say public sector fatcats.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,332
    darkage said:

    DavidL said:

    As I have been pointing out the last several days the economy is recovering fast, jobs are being created very fast, wages are rising fast, areas of the country which have traditionally trailed behind London and the SE are doing better relatively. Vaccines remain a success story. The rest is just piss and wind in the echo chambers of Twitter where the hostile convince themselves with ever more bile that the end is certain and surely, inevitably, people will come to their senses and see that they were right all along.

    I am genuinely struggling to see how Boris does not win the next election. It would require the wheels to come off in an almost biblical way. And for SKS to start sounding like an alternative instead of an echo chamber.

    A lot can happen in 3 years. And whilst there is some success, the government doesn't look particularly stable in comparison to its predecessors. Lots of unknowns. The conservatives have been in power for over a decade.
    I've thought for a while, that for all of the above reasons the prospect of a labour government being elected in the near future is much higher than the odds suggest.
    The Tories have reinvented themselves. This is not the government of Cameron and Osborne (sadly). This is an entirely new government based upon an entirely different electoral coalition which has been in power for just about 2 years. It is delusional to see it otherwise. Labour's "turn" will no doubt come but it is some way off.
  • AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464
    Charles said:

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    By the way did you get the vanilla mail I sent a while back? Never got a reply but read on here the other day that posts were disappearing
    Don't think so. But I've had a couple of cases of getting an email notification about a message, only to find no message in my inbox! I don't recall whether any of those were from you. Could you re-send?

    --AS
  • glwglw Posts: 7,795
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    I say this as a Remainer/Rejoiner. We are not going to get anywhere against Johnson while a large proportion of our number include utter utter bellends like this -

    ...snip...


    What's the meaning of the 3.5% in their twitter names?
    FBPE direct action LARPers.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,357
    I think it's worth connecting the unusually strong record of a government delivering both Brexit and the vaccines to the promise to level-up the North. While that may turn out to be the usual warm words, followed up by inadequate action, it is not unreasonable for voters to view pledges from this government as more credible given its record.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 991
    I think based on my experience today that it is game over for masks in public places. People take their mask off at the first indication that they can.

    However at the same time I have been looking in to an FF43 mask for the first time, simply because I don't want to get the virus when out and about: being double jabbed I am not too worried about getting ill; I just want to avoid having to go in to self isolation as I have too much to do. I have also never downloaded the app for this reason, I am running a business which has involved managing a dangerous building during lockdown, any requirement to self isolate would have been potentially catastrophic.

    I think that the requirement to self isolate needs to go as a priority. The fact that it is a legal requirement to self isolate when told to do so under the threat of a £10,000 penalty is absolutely insane. The only logical response is to not put yourself in a position where you are asked to self isolate; and to this you never take a test, never download the app, never leave details anywhere. The government must surely realise that this is exactly the conclusion that tens of millions of people have come to, even though they would never admit it. It really hampers any prospect of controlling the virus.



  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,212
    Brexit is the big one. Under Boris's command over half the population saw the two major pet hates of many Britons well and truly stuffed: the executive class and foreigners. It was a long time coming and victory was sweet. Boris will be forever cherished for providing that moment and will be forgiven anything.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
    Is Andy Burnham a "raging Trot?"

    What we need is a competent leader with an actual personality like Andy Burnham


    What we need is a competent leader with some actual policies like Andy Burnham


    What we need is not to be to the right of the Tories on NHS pay. Funding Social Care etc as Andy Burnham isnt


    What we need now is a unifying figure as leader like Andy Burnham


    SKS fails on every single count.


    If you cant see he is shit now Pete what will it take?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,970
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    Get everyone to pay it, including the oldies, and it might wash.

    After all this is for care when you're in your early 80s for the last 2-3 years of your life.
    Except that NI, of course, is conveniently not paid by pensioners.
    That's my point. You'd have to extend NI to pensioners (at least at 2% levels) for this to wash.

    As an aside, I don't like tax rises on working people. Last thing they need.
    I'd introduce a 10% additional income tax rate on defined benefit pensions schemes phased in over 10 years at an additional 1% per year. Essentially the government recouping the cost of public sector DB schemes on the other side.
    Why should beneficiaries of private sector DB schemes be penalised?

    The scheme my mother is in was funded entirely by employer contributions and is currently in surplus.
    I did say public sector fatcats.
    Not in the post I replied too…
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,970

    Charles said:

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    By the way did you get the vanilla mail I sent a while back? Never got a reply but read on here the other day that posts were disappearing
    Don't think so. But I've had a couple of cases of getting an email notification about a message, only to find no message in my inbox! I don't recall whether any of those were from you. Could you re-send?

    --AS
    Will do tomorrow - was a detailed response to your question
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,798
    Thoughtful and worrying header for those of us who are not Johnsonian.

    My view is it is primarily down to the remarkable.private short-term wealth that has been accrued through the pandemic, through free government money, or reduction of work related expenditure from WFH and an inability, until recently to spend it.

    Now, one can't buy a home without being gazumped, or get a builder for significant home improvements they are all booked up. There is a significant shortage of nearly new used prestige cars, because we are cheering ourselves up post-Covid.with a "spend,spend,spend" philosophy. We have never had it so good.

    But will all this last once the furlough money stops? Maybe it will, but I really doubt that
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,613

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    So what happened?
    Maybe the Forde report will reveal what happened in 2017 when we were so close to kicking the Tories out
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,419
    kle4 said:

    1. Yes - 2 years of bickering was fun in a morbid way, and an important test of our politics and constitution, but putting an end to it was bound to have enduring positive effects. It will take time for that to fade.

    2. I'm not sure it really works but kudos for use of mephistophelean. I'd be less irritated by the 'Boris is not perfect' stuff or about voters not caring about the same things as wonks, were it not for the quite unnecessary stuff. Just because people don't care about standards doesn't mean we have to give them low standards.

    3. Yes, a win. I don't think voters do gratitude, but in the immediate term it is a reminder of a success.

    4. How much the Tories have gone right is disputed, but I think it is correct that there is no significant bleedage in that direction for the Tories. United, they are hard to beat.

    5. I honestly have no idea if this really connects with people. A town near me has had funds earmarked and went further LD in May. But perhaps the right talk does keep on those who made a jump to support and are inclined to respond well to such promises.

    6. Eh, maybe. I don't think anyone among normal people ever really cared about inconsistencies. The expulsions were definitely ruthless, but doing whatever seems to have support just seems flexible.

    7. I think lots of people vote for parties which, policy wise, don't really align to what they say they support, though I'm wary of accusing people of having false consciousness. But it seems clear some in the right places were trending Tory for some time, and enough made the plunge a once. There's some movement among others in the opposite direction, but it needs to be a lot and in the right places, so for the medium term the Tories benefit.

    8. Starmer's doing what he can, I'm very surprised he has not restored the whip to Corbyn, but fundamentally it's a serious problem when some still love the Corbyn project and others want to forget it ever happened. I guess time is all that can resolve that?

    9. I've never really been sure how to make a non-invisible shadow cabinet. They do get out there, as does here. How to grab attention? How to make the team appear strong? (being strong would be a bonus). He's clearly trying, so is he just inadequate? He's not bombastic, but some argue that will be what people want next, but I'm not sure if that's so - I think for now people do still want big personalities.

    10. No it hasn't. Some have made the optimism vs pessimism argument, but that seems a bit simplistic and surely oppositions have to be able to be very critical without being 'pessimistic'. But why everyone argues where the line is, perhaps there is a line - when things seem, well, OK, constant bemoaning of things being especially bad strikes a dissnonant note. It's not that people dislike pessimism, perhaps, but they do look around and just think that things are not as claimed, in which case the sunnier vision is technically closer.

    Sound points.

    On (1) Perhaps the abject failure of parliament over Brexit has made it more irrelevant in the public mind than strong government. This is not, at the moment good for Labour if true. Strong government is not what they look like.

    On (9) How to make a non invisible shadow cabinet: Top quality good ideas and Blair quality presentation of them. The media always has time for the best. There is always room at the top.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,846
    Apparently Cummings saved the Queen from Boris.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,504
    Big Dom had popped up again dropping his truth....
  • AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT:

    MaxPB said:

    Who is dying from Delta variant?

    90% were over 50
    36% were unvaccinated (of which 77% were over 50)
    17% had had 1 jab
    45% have had two doses (of which 98% were over 50)

    Last figure will reflect the fact that the vast, vast majority of over 50s have had two doses.


    https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1415373345906909186?s=20

    Not so good.
    Nah, it's to be expected. When you take into account mortality risk for double vaccinated cohorts and expected infection rates it must be efficacy of well over 99.9% against death.
    I agree with you that it's to be expected that a sizable minority, and eventually a small majority, of deaths will be amongst the vaccinated. But I strongly disagree with a figure of 99.9% efficacy. I think you have consistently over-estimated the reduction in mortality.

    I don't know of anything published on AZ, but extrapolation from hospitalization numbers suggests 95-98% reduction in mortality. It might end up 98-99% if we're really lucky. There are at least two separate pieces of published literature on mortality reduction of Pfizer, both of which found 96-97%.

    96-98% would be great, let's hope it's more towards the top of that range. 99.9% is a fantasy.

    (And this is the overall unconditional reduction. You have to knock of a factor of 5-10 for the conditional risk of death given infection. It's probably something like a 50-85% reduction in mortality, once infected.)

    --AS
    By the way did you get the vanilla mail I sent a while back? Never got a reply but read on here the other day that posts were disappearing
    Don't think so. But I've had a couple of cases of getting an email notification about a message, only to find no message in my inbox! I don't recall whether any of those were from you. Could you re-send?

    --AS
    Will do tomorrow - was a detailed response to your question
    I'll send you a message now.

    --AS
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,370

    It's literally impossible for SKS to be more incompetent.

    Unions demand 12-15% pay rise for NHS.

    Labour demanded 2.1%.

    Tory government just awarded 3% NHS pay rise.

    Labour spokesman doesnt know whether to have a shit shave or a haircut

    No wonder they are on target for the worst defeat since 1935

    I can't see any reports of any announcement at all re NHS pay rise.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 10,069

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
    Is Andy Burnham a "raging Trot?"

    What we need is a competent leader with an actual personality like Andy Burnham


    What we need is a competent leader with some actual policies like Andy Burnham


    What we need is not to be to the right of the Tories on NHS pay. Funding Social Care etc as Andy Burnham isnt


    What we need now is a unifying figure as leader like Andy Burnham


    SKS fails on every single count.


    If you cant see he is shit now Pete what will it take?
    Andy Burnham is about as available as Clement Attlee. Politics is the art of the ------- (7 letters).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,491
    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    Get everyone to pay it, including the oldies, and it might wash.

    After all this is for care when you're in your early 80s for the last 2-3 years of your life.
    Except that NI, of course, is conveniently not paid by pensioners.
    That's my point. You'd have to extend NI to pensioners (at least at 2% levels) for this to wash.

    As an aside, I don't like tax rises on working people. Last thing they need.
    I'd introduce a 10% additional income tax rate on defined benefit pensions schemes phased in over 10 years at an additional 1% per year. Essentially the government recouping the cost of public sector DB schemes on the other side.
    Why should beneficiaries of private sector DB schemes be penalised?

    The scheme my mother is in was funded entirely by employer contributions and is currently in surplus.
    I think @MaxPB has come up with an interesting idea that mainly applies to over generous public sector schemes. Re your mother the employer received tax relief on the contributions and your mother did not have to pay any tax on the benefit. Often with DB the employer contribution had to be very large hence most companies bailing out so is often a big tax free benefit that a DC employee can only dream of getting.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,846
    “Get covid and live longer”
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,419
    IshmaelZ said:

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
    Is Andy Burnham a "raging Trot?"

    What we need is a competent leader with an actual personality like Andy Burnham


    What we need is a competent leader with some actual policies like Andy Burnham


    What we need is not to be to the right of the Tories on NHS pay. Funding Social Care etc as Andy Burnham isnt


    What we need now is a unifying figure as leader like Andy Burnham


    SKS fails on every single count.


    If you cant see he is shit now Pete what will it take?
    Andy Burnham is about as available as Clement Attlee. Politics is the art of the ------- (7 letters).
    8?


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,823
    algarkirk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
    Is Andy Burnham a "raging Trot?"

    What we need is a competent leader with an actual personality like Andy Burnham


    What we need is a competent leader with some actual policies like Andy Burnham


    What we need is not to be to the right of the Tories on NHS pay. Funding Social Care etc as Andy Burnham isnt


    What we need now is a unifying figure as leader like Andy Burnham


    SKS fails on every single count.


    If you cant see he is shit now Pete what will it take?
    Andy Burnham is about as available as Clement Attlee. Politics is the art of the ------- (7 letters).
    8?


    soluble?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,877
    gealbhan said:

    Scott_xP said:

    EXCLUSIVE: PM and Chancellor "almost there" on manifesto-busting hike to National Insurance Contributions - of at least 1% - to pay for Social Care blackhole. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/15636214/national-insurance-hike-to-pay-for-social-care/

    1% tax rise in National Insurance being a 2% tax rise of course. 😡👎
    Why is 1% NI 2% tax rise?

    Anyway, disagreement with this policy without putting forward alternative policy is not acceptable - the financial black hole extent of this problem going forward, quirks and unfairness in current arrangement has to be addressed. So no nitpicking of what Boris government supported in key votes by Labour are going to push through, the status quo has to improve, you can only object presenting an alternative.

    Having said that, I think something is being missed here - the Sun focussing on the election busting tax hike, but what I want to know, in the plan has to be a basement figure, dimnot had it at 50K May at 100, this whole thing won’t be funded by tax alone, so what is the basement figure?

    The Torys are ahead because Boris is having a brilliant week. The lefty’s in this room loved his levelling up speech; he used Freedom Day to reveal his Covid passport plan, polls will show huge majority for extending the passport for entering all pubs and indoor social spaces this winter; and Boris is on the verge of getting something very similar to May’s plan for sorting out social care funding through the commons, after the next queens speech.
    NI is the most contemptible, disreputable and dishonest of all our taxes - and every 1% is really 2%.

    So-called "1% on National Insurance" is really 1% on Employee National Insurance and 1% on Employer National Insurance. So its really 2% on Income Tax, being masked as 1%.

    Any "Employer National Insurance" comes from a companies labour budget so is a tax on wages every bit as much as a tax on incomes - because it is a tax on incomes, its just a pervertedly hidden one.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,798
    edited July 19

    On Topic

    Because SKS is shit?😊

    SKS fans please explain todays poll.

    Why is he 33% behind what was promised with "any other leader"

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1417058300961689600

    What we need is some raging Trot to lead the Party and send the Labour figures through the roof. Now there's a thought. Why did the party never think of that before? What? We did try that before. So what happened?
    Is Andy Burnham a "raging Trot?"

    What we need is a competent leader with an actual personality like Andy Burnham


    What we need is a competent leader with some actual policies like Andy Burnham


    What we need is not to be to the right of the Tories on NHS pay. Funding Social Care etc as Andy Burnham isnt


    What we need now is a unifying figure as leader like Andy Burnham


    SKS fails on every single count.


    If you cant see he is shit now Pete what will it take?
    Fine, I'm with you all the way, but how do we clone another Andy Burnham so one of them is available to take over from Starmer? As Manchester Mayor the lone existing Andy Burnham is unavailable.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,340
    darkage said:

    I think based on my experience today that it is game over for masks in public places. People take their mask off at the first indication that they can.

    However at the same time I have been looking in to an FF43 mask for the first time, simply because I don't want to get the virus when out and about: being double jabbed I am not too worried about getting ill; I just want to avoid having to go in to self isolation as I have too much to do. I have also never downloaded the app for this reason, I am running a business which has involved managing a dangerous building during lockdown, any requirement to self isolate would have been potentially catastrophic.

    I think that the requirement to self isolate needs to go as a priority. The fact that it is a legal requirement to self isolate when told to do so under the threat of a £10,000 penalty is absolutely insane. The only logical response is to not put yourself in a position where you are asked to self isolate; and to this you never take a test, never download the app, never leave details anywhere. The government must surely realise that this is exactly the conclusion that tens of millions of people have come to, even though they would never admit it. It really hampers any prospect of controlling the virus.



    I didn’t actually realise you were theoretically at risk of a £10k fine for failing to isolate when pinged. Have any such fines ever been issued?
This discussion has been closed.