politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there was a CON leadership contest tomorrow my money would

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618100378554373

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618673152626688

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618890946019328

"In the longer run, the government has accepted that the economy will be smaller and and tax revenues will be lower as a result of Brexit."

Earlier this year, Chancellor Phillip Hammond warned that public spending could not increase because Britain's economy was suffering due to uncertainty over Brexit."
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-explain-20bn-nhs-funding-plan-11408253

Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.

I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.

Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ?
Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.

.. but not enough.

How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.

Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't.
The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it

I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles.
Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.

The Tories could put VAt upto 30%.They have always increased that when needed.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Clegg pandering to xenophobia and racism. Apparently.

https://twitter.com/supermathskid/status/1008301071016644608

There’s a small part of Nick Clegg that gets it, unlike many of his fellow Remain co-travellers he is both perceptive and intelligent. He has also said the EU needs to become much more comfortable with national identity, which even Donald Tusk flirted with recently wrt. Serbia’s accession talks.

However, these are just words and are too little, too late. The EU could sink Brexit by removing a few of its federalist symbols with respect to the UK, and some sensible caveats/limits on free movement but it is unable or unwilling to see it, and just as theological about its “Project” as Nigel Farage is about total independence.

The EU is not trusted by the UK electorate, certainly not after the negotiations on Brexit, but probably never was trusted. Cameron did not even get a vague offer from the EU about freedom of movement. Blair got a vague offer about changes to the CAP in return for increased contributions by the UK to the EU. The CAP changes never happened.

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618100378554373

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618673152626688

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618890946019328

"In the longer run, the government has accepted that the economy will be smaller and and tax revenues will be lower as a result of Brexit."

Earlier this year, Chancellor Phillip Hammond warned that public spending could not increase because Britain's economy was suffering due to uncertainty over Brexit."
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-explain-20bn-nhs-funding-plan-11408253

Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.

I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.

Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ?
Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.

.. but not enough.

How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.

Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't.
The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it

I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles.
Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.

A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.

The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.

You're probably right.
How about a Referendum ;-) on Money to Trident vs NHS?

How about a referendum on the basic rate of income tax?

A binary question - up 5% or down 5%.

Which would win?

https://twitter.com/PoliticalPics/status/1008655965653295104

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618100378554373

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618673152626688

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618890946019328

"In the longer run, the government has accepted that the economy will be smaller and and tax revenues will be lower as a result of Brexit."

Earlier this year, Chancellor Phillip Hammond warned that public spending could not increase because Britain's economy was suffering due to uncertainty over Brexit."
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-explain-20bn-nhs-funding-plan-11408253

Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.

I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.

Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ?
Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.

.. but not enough.

How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.

Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't.
The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it

I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles.
Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.

A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.

The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.

The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.

About £2billion/year apparently, so not enough on its own to fund the proposed increase. So higher taxes and bye bye Triple Lock?
Could save a bit by cancelling Brexit too.

edmundintokyo said:

Roger said:

OT. Who'd have guessed. Melania's got a mouth

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44515123

Interesting thread from a medieval historian on using the king's wife to appeal for mercy and how that pattern fits in here:

https://twitter.com/Sonja_Drimmer/status/1008441986863464448

Lady Godiva is a cutting edge role model for Melania Trump.

Yorkcity said:

stodge said:

Morning all

30 races at Royal Ascot and a World Cup to bet on and some are obsessing about a contest in which we don't know the runners and riders yet.

So, moving massively OFF topic to something of more interest - England have three "styles" of World Cup campaign - the confident start which promises miracles and fades to nothing, the poor start which suddenly blossoms into a couple of world class performances before reality intrudes or the poor start which never gets going and it's an early flight home.

I don't know - I just can't see that squad producing two or three world class performances to get beyond the QF stage - they could do it once and just conceivably twice.

As for the most important sporting event of the week by a country mile, it's off to Berkshire and I don't know if Ascot racecourse is in Theresa May's constituency (HYUFD might be able to help me out) but HMQ will of course be present.

My Day 1 selections for the big races are:

2.30: LIGHTNING SPEAR (e/w)
3.45: LADY AURELIA
4.20: US NAVY FLAG (e/w)

Have a successful betting week all whatever markets you're playing.

The starts for England ,which was successfully were a draw 1966 winners and 1990 , semi finals..

They did get to the quarter finals in 1986 , after a defeat in the first match.

However the missed opportunity was in 1982 , when they started with a 3-1 win against France.
Never lost a game .
However went out , as it was a different format.

1970 was also a massive missed opportunity. 2-0 vs W Germany in a QF with 25 minutes to go.

David_Evershed said:

The difficulty with betting on the next Conservative leader is knowing if the MPs and then the Conservative members who make the choice will vote for the person they prefer or vote for the person they think the electorate prefer.

Gove is popular with members but not so much with the electorate. Rees-Mogg and Javid would be a gamble as regards public popularity. Javid more likely to gain popularity in the longer term.

Johnson has good recognition in public and can demonstrate his success being elected in a Labour heartland as London major.

Hunt likely to be seen as too managerial and Davidson as too whacky.

Leadsom and Raab too anonymous.

We should not forget though that it is the members who will decide from the final two on the MPs short list - not the public.

To be fair to both Hunt and Javid relatively unknown Cameron came through the Pack to get elected leader in 2005

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.

Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't.
The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it

I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles.
Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.

A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.

The fact is that with a growing and ageing population there are a whole series of strains on public spending. The growth in public spending since 2010 has been exceptionally small in real terms, well below the long term average. This has inevitably increased pressures on a whole range of areas from Health, education, infrastructure, transport, defence and, of course, public sector wages. What it has not done, regrettably, is eliminate the horrific deficit that was built up during the recession.

One of the main reasons for this is that growth has been modest, not just here but throughout the developed world. Taxes have been increased, especially on the better off, but we simply cannot afford what we are spending right now.

It seems to me that we have some difficult choices. Either we look to radically reshape public sector services or we find additional sources of income. In my view income is already highly taxed in this country, capital and wealth are not. It seems inevitable that we will need to have people pay for their personal care, even posthumously, from their capital. In short we need a dementia style tax back, albeit one that applies a lot more generally than the idiotic nonsense in the Tory Manifesto. I really don't see a credible alternative.

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

England are like they are from Carthage.

Massively overated team that occasionally gets lucky but when they finally face decent opposition they have their testicles handed to them.

Bring back Sven.

Who gets sacked first?

Jones or Southgate?

Oh Jones, no question. Southgate has already rather cleverly positioned himself as building towards the future so even an extremely modest WC should not prove fatal this time around. Jones, on the other hand, is reaping some of the arrogance that he sewed.

Listening to Radio Daily Mirror this morning all the journos have been glowing about Southgate and his dealing with them and the players. Perhaps the government need to employ him to learn how to do decent PR.

A few years ago, myself and Mrs Urquhart found ourselves holidaying at the same small resort as the Southgate family. I have to say he came across as a really nice family guy. I can't say that of many other professional footballers I have met in the past.

logical_song said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618100378554373

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618673152626688

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1008618890946019328

"In the longer run, the government has accepted that the economy will be smaller and and tax revenues will be lower as a result of Brexit."

Earlier this year, Chancellor Phillip Hammond warned that public spending could not increase because Britain's economy was suffering due to uncertainty over Brexit."
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-explain-20bn-nhs-funding-plan-11408253

Yeh, and Hammond has been overruled by May, who has come down on Hunt on this one.

I suppose Hammond could resign, or more likely he will find some fudge in the numbers in the autumn.

Surely the way to square the circle is for allowance thresholds to remain static ?
Fiscal drag then just does some of the lifting.

.. but not enough.

How about some welfare reform, that'll cost a bomb for about a decade Oh, wait.

Hopefully you understand what you wrote, because I don't.
The money to fund the NHS has to come from somewhere, freezing thresholds won't do it

I'm agreeing. The largest slice of the spending pie is welfare of various forms, but I note the Tories have made a pig's ear of trying to reduce spend on that with the Universal Credit shambles.
Past threshold freezing I don't see any more easy wins, even making NI fairer was ran away from by Hammond/May.

A LOT of money is needed for NHS/Social Care. Taxes and Trident are two possibilities, more austerity probably not.

The Conservatives will never lower spending on trident, it is #1 hobby horse.

The annual cost of Trident is pretty trivial compared with the size of the NHS budget and if scrapped would in any case almost certainly be spent on conventional forces. but it'd be a stupid decision.

About £2billion/year apparently, so not enough on its own to fund the proposed increase. So higher taxes and bye bye Triple Lock?
Could save a bit by cancelling Brexit too.

Borrowing more here we come.

https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1008659951869464576

Slackbladder said:

Freggles said:

Lower the benefit cap, raise income tax by a penny, tax capital gains as income. That'd bring in a decent amount.

the problem with Capital gains is all the reliefs which are present with it, not so much the headline rate. Without wholescale reform of those, then thats a very dangerous thing to say in isolation.

Normally reliefs are present to drive a desired behaviour such as investment in green technology.

One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

David_Evershed said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Clegg pandering to xenophobia and racism. Apparently.

https://twitter.com/supermathskid/status/1008301071016644608

There’s a small part of Nick Clegg that gets it, unlike many of his fellow Remain co-travellers he is both perceptive and intelligent. He has also said the EU needs to become much more comfortable with national identity, which even Donald Tusk flirted with recently wrt. Serbia’s accession talks.

However, these are just words and are too little, too late. The EU could sink Brexit by removing a few of its federalist symbols with respect to the UK, and some sensible caveats/limits on free movement but it is unable or unwilling to see it, and just as theological about its “Project” as Nigel Farage is about total independence.

The EU is not trusted by the UK electorate, certainly not after the negotiations on Brexit, but probably never was trusted. Cameron did not even get a vague offer from the EU about freedom of movement. Blair got a vague offer about changes to the CAP in return for increased contributions by the UK to the EU. The CAP changes never happened.

Nope. It’s all the fault of our right wing newspapers and one wing of the Conservative Party. The EU have absolutely nothing whatever to do with it.

Apparently.

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

https://twitter.com/SDoughtyMP/status/1008644381933559809

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

rottenborough said:

One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

And I imagine that 2 such polarising figures would make it very difficult for any of the smaller parties to get a look-in. I'd much rather the Tories go for someone who doesn't fire up either their own or the opposition activists, er Hammond for leader?

Indeed, if memory serves me, Labour got the easiest ride ever from journos about their manifesto spending plans, at last GE.

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Presumably that could be stopped.

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)

Us poor self employed are not able to get up to such shenanigans. :-)

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

Similarly I would argue that 2001 is a better guide to people's underlying attitudes to the EU (and Eurosceptics) than the referendum, which took place in a very unique context with circumstances that cannot ever be repeated.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

On that basis, what would electing Javid signify?

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)

Why is there this loophole in our system?

Assuming that sacs refers to salary sacrifice, what are the main areas that can be exploited?

Are the sacrifices for things that people realy want/need/value?

Nemtynakht said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 201her.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

For this reason they have to go with Javid, who I tipped here years ago for his son of a bus driver working class background. They did it with Cameron and his disabled son, and his support of the NHS as someone who had used it.

Very funny Dead Ringers on Friday with Sajid "as the son of a Pakistani bus driver" Javid being "interviewed", if you heard it.

anothernick said:

OblitusSumMe said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.

But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

He was also standing both times again Ken.

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)

Why is there this loophole in our system?

Because its good to support employers paying into employee pensions.

Slackbladder said:

anothernick said:

OblitusSumMe said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.

But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

He was also standing both times again Ken.

How well would Ken do now?

Nemtynakht said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.

Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!

Agreed.

There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

Yorkcity said:

JosiasJessop said:

Yorkcity said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jezfest - Too white, too middle class and all a bit shit...says the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/18/jeremy-corbyn-tories-little-fear-jezfest-labour-live

Nah, the Guardian is wrong and should immediately be shunned by all left-minded thinkers.

After all, we've been told the event was 'actually pretty successful'

Why did you not go ?

I arrived home on Friday after four days camping, and was washing my tent.

Otherwise I'd have been first in the queue to buy reasonably-priced goods and listen to words of infinite wisdom amidst great music by well-known acts.

Well I hope you are cheering on England this evening, and singing , World in motion.

I am utterly uninterested in football. I hope England win, but will probably find something slightly more productive to do with my time. But I hope everyone enjoys themselves.

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

Similarly I would argue that 2001 is a better guide to people's underlying attitudes to the EU (and Eurosceptics) than the referendum, which took place in a very unique context with circumstances that cannot ever be repeated.

Lol!!

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

The Tories are currently polling about 42% in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.

Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway

Tories live in abject fear of another GE1997, but it’s a different country now and politics are more polarised around values than economics.

Agreed, the Tories may no longer hold seats like Enfield Southgate and Ilford North they won in 1992 but they do hold seats like Mansfield and Thurrock which were Labour in 1992

OblitusSumMe said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Putting NI back on retired people's income would raise a fair bit of cash as well. I also expect the lifetime cap on pension funds to be lowered to raise more money.

The increasingly ridiculous and unfair tax advantages for pension inputs by higher rate tax payers needs looking at.

But it won't be by a Tory government.

On the other hand, people aren't saving anywhere near enough for pensions, If you don't provide a good reason for people do, they'll be even less inclined.

I don't have numbers. But I suspect that the vast majority of those who are not saving enough are in the standard tax bracket.

Yes thats true

But also on the other hand, if you restrict higher-rate relief then employees will just do a salarly sac on their income for Employers to make the contribution. That might not work out well for the chancellor if more people do this.

Surely everyone (Aside from gilt edged public sector employees) salary sacs anyway, it's efficient at the basic rate too due to the NI savings (And also reduces student loan repayments, which will be a real saving for many going forward)

Why is there this loophole in our system?

I assume it was a way to sell auto-enrolment to small companies. The savings on Employers NI will help pay for the paperwork.

Auto-enrolment doesn't have anything to do directly with salary sac. Unless you plan to pay over the minimum levels of course.

Casino_Royale said:

Slackbladder said:

anothernick said:

OblitusSumMe said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.

But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

He was also standing both times again Ken.

How well would Ken do now?

Well, his manifesto would be mainly about Hitler.

So difficult to predict.

DavidL said:

Nemtynakht said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.

Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!

Agreed.

There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

Liz Kendall was the MP.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Nemtynakht said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.

Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!

Agreed.

There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

Liz Kendall was the MP.

She was the future once.

One of many with ability biding their time on select committees until Jezza-fest combusts.

Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SDoughtyMP/status/1008644381933559809

Just the latest example of the FT abandoning any sense of objectivity when it comes to EU issues. Clearly beyond 2020, as things stand, we will no longer be paying the full EU membership fee. That is a fact. Many economists predict a negative GDP impact that will outweigh it, but then many economists predicted EMU would be economically advantageous when actually it collapsed half the bloc. But the FT does not care about all that because they are raving metropolitan Europhiles who are incapable of considering other views on this matter.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.

The problem with Boris as leader is that he is bumbling and lazy. The only people that think he is a xenophobic racist are those that already hate the Tories.

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority

Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.

I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

In short a battle cry for Labour.

So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on

I

The Tories are currently polling about 42%, in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory ay

1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.

Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then

Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.

No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963