politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak continues to defy gravity in YouGov’s favourability rati

BluestBlue said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Dr. Luntz occasionally knows a thing or two. He famously assisted Boris in his very first election victory - the presidency of the Oxford Union.

He also helped Cameron, a fellow Oxonian, win the Tory leadership and thus become PM with his famous 2005 focus group

The government appears to be promoting the idea of Scotland being an independent coastal state.

https://twitter.com/scotsecofstate/status/1300904926604939264?s=21

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Black_Rook said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1300886418387017735

Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.

Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.

Blair killed the Union.

Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.

Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.

The Tories killed the Union

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I'm afraid that New Labour is top of the list in this particular instance. They created devolution for party political ends, and made a complete dog's breakfast of it into the bargain.

The Tories had 10 years to unbreak it and they have not, their problem now

All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

As a kid, I could always just about get the concept of a cat jumping over the moon but how on earth does a load of kings horses help put a big egg back together again?. The kings men will struggle but c'mon how do horses even begin to start ?

Wasn't Humpty Dumpty a cannon?
I believe the egg was a Victorian illustrator's imagination.

To be fair, I think the Kings horses wouldn't be much use in cannon repair either.

If the cannon is on the ground you need to resite it. They are quite heavy.

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?

Vote Tory in future...

Er... You may not have noticed but the Tories introduce just as many 'cleverly run state schemes' as Labour.

state_go_away said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Black_Rook said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1300886418387017735

Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.

Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.

Blair killed the Union.

Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.

Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.

The Tories killed the Union

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I'm afraid that New Labour is top of the list in this particular instance. They created devolution for party political ends, and made a complete dog's breakfast of it into the bargain.

The Tories had 10 years to unbreak it and they have not, their problem now

All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

As a kid, I could always just about get the concept of a cat jumping over the moon but how on earth does a load of kings horses help put a big egg back together again?. The kings men will struggle but c'mon how do horses even begin to start ?

Humpty Dumpty was a particularly big cannon that the Royalists had in the English Civil War.

It fell off the wall when the Parliamentarians attacked - the King's men and horses tried to drag it back into position but to no avail...

then the song should surely say that they couldn't put Humpty back again (and not together again!).

May be the gun carriage stayed on the wall and the barrel just slid slowly downwards?

Anyone between 25 - 65 is more or less guaranteed to not benefit from any Gov't scheme that is dependent on age.

Benpointer said:

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?

Vote Tory in future...

Er... You may not have noticed but the Tories introduce just as many 'cleverly run state schemes' as Labour.

They are bad too.

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Casino_Royale said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1300855946541846528

Sanity on defence and foreign policy, not frightening the horses on the economy, balance on crime & justice and pledging not to loosen migration control whilst giving Boris enough rope to hang himself on Brexit.

Labour has a 10-15 point lead and is back in office in less than 4 years.

Do you think Labour would actually win by 10-15 points though? In my mind the best is a minority Government

IF Labour continues at circa 40% across GB , I expect to see its support in Scotland to recover to circa 30% - at least matching its 2017 vote share there. Many SNP seats would then become vulnerable.

If that were the case Labour would pick up about 20 SNP seats as well as gaining enough Tory seats to at least force a hung parliament and we would likely end up back in the EEA or with a softer Brexit FTA under PM Starmer

We are talking 2024. Starmer is not going to go into bat in that election talking about any form of ongoing relationship with the EU. Not unless he wants to plummet ten points....

If we are on WTO terms Brexit in 2024 and the economy is in deep recession and the government very unpopular of course he will be, if WTO terms Brexit or any FTA agreed with the EU is going brilliantly then the Tories will likely win again anyway.

I agree. However, whereas the first part of your thesis is bob-on, the second part is possible but highly unlikely in the shadow of Covid.

BluestBlue said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Dr. Luntz occasionally knows a thing or two. He famously assisted Boris in his very first election victory - the presidency of the Oxford Union.

That’s more myth than reality.
Johnson lost when he first ran:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/oxford-union-president-boris-johnson-neil-sherlock

He only won when he ran against someone who was one of the worst debaters ever to run for the post.

Casino_Royale said:

Black_Rook said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

justin124 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1300886418387017735

Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.

Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.

Blair killed the Union.

Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.

Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.

The Tories killed the Union

I always agreed with Tam Dalyell. Devolution was a self inflicted disaster.

What was the alternative though? Deny any Scottish government at all?

He could have created an English Parliament with English devolution equivalent to the Scottish one. Then the PM would be PM of the UK and not primarily PM of England. But then someone else would have been English First Minister and he'd have lost much of his powers. So he didn't give away his toys to the English First Minister he kept them for himself.

But him wanting the powers of First Minister of England isn't a reason to have asymmetric devolution.

Boris Johnson is able to do that now, get on with it

Have you any idea of the legislation required to make such a constitutional change

It is not going to happen

And so bye bye Scotland.

Even if the Tories hold off the second independence referendum until Labour gets back in, AND Labour bribes the Scottish electorate to stay with Devomax, AND the bribe succeeds, then it would leave 59 Scottish MPs in the House of Commons with almost nothing left to do with their time except to meddle in English legislation. That's not sustainable.

This problem needs to be resolved. So, sorry, but if England doesn't get parity of esteem with Scotland then the sooner Scotland is gone the better.

That's effectively what the SNP did when they blocked Cameron's attempt to liberalise the fox hunting ban in 2015. It was an effort to piss off the English the other way.

Of course, on that issue - on which public opinion had moved rapidly in the last ten years, even in England - they got away with it but it wouldn't end there.

Wedge Wedge Wedge. It's the SNP leitmotif.

Smart politics from their perspective.

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?

Vote Tory in future...

Trouble is that there isn't a Tory party at the moment. Some radical populists have nicked the name, rosette colour and structures.

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?

Vote Tory in future...

Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him.
So he should therefore vote Tory??

He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.

This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.

Therefore he should revisit his principles?

(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)

Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure).
Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now.
Edit.
I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

justin124 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1300886418387017735

Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.

Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.

Blair killed the Union.

Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.

Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.

The Tories killed the Union

I always agreed with Tam Dalyell. Devolution was a self inflicted disaster.

What was the alternative though? Deny any Scottish government at all?

He could have created an English Parliament with English devolution equivalent to the Scottish one. Then the PM would be PM of the UK and not primarily PM of England. But then someone else would have been English First Minister and he'd have lost much of his powers. So he didn't give away his toys to the English First Minister he kept them for himself.

But him wanting the powers of First Minister of England isn't a reason to have asymmetric devolution.

I like that in principle but the problem has always been that the English First Minister would be so powerful as to overpower the UK PM.

And if you want the UK to survive first and foremost, why is that a problem?

Ultimately either the Scots should have been told no devolution, we're running the UK as one country and you're in Parliament - or there should have been devolution for all. What was done was a mess and structurally flawed - and the fact there was no easy answer isn't a good enough reason to have proceeded knowing the flaws and ignoring them.

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1300898312657174530

Rishi to pay the wages of all newly hired under 25's for 6 months is another innovative scheme

I think you mean: Rishi to make the taxpayer pay the wages of all newly hired under 25's for 6 months.

It's a nonsense bung as @Gallowgate points out. It's supposed to be Labour coming up with this tripe not the Tories.

But it isn't. It is a Tory scheme...

Well yes !

This young person employment story is there a link somewhere to read the details? It seems to be on the Telegraph but I can't find the story on the Telegraph's website?

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.

Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.

I recognise that the interests of a far greater number of 20-25 year olds outweigh mine - it's just a bit unfortunate for me that's all!

At least I have plenty of experience as a selling point and they do not.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.

But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession

It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.

Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.

Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.

I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.

The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right about the fiscal situation at the beginning of the year, and in your implicit assumption that Brexit won't do any structural damage to the UK economy. Let's further assume that there is a working vaccine before Christmas, a relatively v-shaped economic recovery, and no problem financing the increased pile of national debt. What remaining problems might face the Chancellor?

1. The pandemic might change the structure of the economy, even if it does not change its size. If there is much more home-working and much less commuting, and associated changes in the economy, then this could have a massive impact on the tax base. You could expect to see large drops in business rates, fuel duty and stamp duty revenue - and a massive hole in the finances of the railways. Consumer income spent on Amazon will not generate as much tax revenue for the Treasury.

2. He has a Prime Minister whose instinct is to promise money to solve problems, to spend money on flamboyant gestures. There will be a necessity to find money in the budget to fulfil these promises.

3. At the beginning of the year the UK had a number of serious economic weaknesses that, unaddressed, will hold us back - poor productivity, persistent trade and balance of payment deficits, the effects of austerity on public services and national infrastructure. It's not just the chickens from the last year that will be looking for space to roost in. There is quite the homecoming in prospect.

4. And then - what will it do to business investor confidence if the SNP win a 2021 Holyrood election on a manifesto calling for another Independence referendum? Much is made of the plans the SNP have, or do not have, for a Scottish currency after Independence, but the political and economic turmoil will put additional pressure on Sterling.

5. From a purely political angle, it's also important to note that Osborne appeared to have the complete backing of his Prime Minister. Johnson will be much more willing to sacrifice Sunak should he have run out of senior civil servants to blame.

The next couple of years will not be an easy time to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1300914196578738177?s=21

Has a more underwhelming "exclusive" ever been penned?

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

A former work colleague of mine based in California recently moved to Phoenix because he was sick of the traffic around Los Angeles, as well as the house prices. He's certainly a Biden voter.

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.

Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.

Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.

Devil will be in the details I suspect.

Indeed so. Under the Thatcher government, my company was getting quite large incentives to hire youngsters - very successfully in some cases, in the sense that some of them (especially a young lad from Brixton with very little in the way of qualifications when we took him on) went on to do very well indeed.

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1300914196578738177?s=21

Has a more underwhelming "exclusive" ever been penned?

I still think a cardboard cut-out Richard Leonard would be more politically effective and cheaper with it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.

Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.

Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.

Devil will be in the details I suspect.

Indeed so. Under the Thatcher government, my company was getting quite large incentives to hire youngsters - very successfully in some cases, in the sense that some of them (especially a young lad from Brixton with very little in the way of qualifications when we took him on) went on to do very well indeed.

John Major?

LostPassword said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..

I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.

But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession

It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.

Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.

Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.

Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.

I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.

The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right about the fiscal situation at the beginning of the year, and in your implicit assumption that Brexit won't do any structural damage to the UK economy. Let's further assume that there is a working vaccine before Christmas, a relatively v-shaped economic recovery, and no problem financing the increased pile of national debt. What remaining problems might face the Chancellor?

1. The pandemic might change the structure of the economy, even if it does not change its size. If there is much more home-working and much less commuting, and associated changes in the economy, then this could have a massive impact on the tax base. You could expect to see large drops in business rates, fuel duty and stamp duty revenue - and a massive hole in the finances of the railways. Consumer income spent on Amazon will not generate as much tax revenue for the Treasury.

2. He has a Prime Minister whose instinct is to promise money to solve problems, to spend money on flamboyant gestures. There will be a necessity to find money in the budget to fulfil these promises.

3. At the beginning of the year the UK had a number of serious economic weaknesses that, unaddressed, will hold us back - poor productivity, persistent trade and balance of payment deficits, the effects of austerity on public services and national infrastructure. It's not just the chickens from the last year that will be looking for space to roost in. There is quite the homecoming in prospect.

4. And then - what will it do to business investor confidence if the SNP win a 2021 Holyrood election on a manifesto calling for another Independence referendum? Much is made of the plans the SNP have, or do not have, for a Scottish currency after Independence, but the political and economic turmoil will put additional pressure on Sterling.

5. From a purely political angle, it's also important to note that Osborne appeared to have the complete backing of his Prime Minister. Johnson will be much more willing to sacrifice Sunak should he have run out of senior civil servants to blame.

The next couple of years will not be an easy time to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I'm not saying it will be easy, nothing important ever is. I'm just saying it may not be as bad as what Osborne had to face for muliple reasons. As for your points.

0. You said by next year, I wouldn't say by next year. I think restraint should be shown ASAP but don't think the deficit needs to be seriously addressed for about 2-3 years. Historically 2-3 years after a recession is when deficits start to come down again and that was true in 2010 too.

1. Yes this is true. The economy will adapt though. Again we've gone into this crash with a far healthier deficit than last time and business rates, fuel duty etc are not the golden goose that Brown was plucking last time. There will indeed be holes to fill, but there are after any recession - but holes to fill is not a whole chasm.

2. All Chancellors face this issue.

3. This counteracts point 1. Inefficient transport, minimum wage sandwich shops, minimum wage coffee shops etc are poor productivity jobs that are getting culled at the minute. Chances are that post-COVID is going to see a boom in productivity.

4. It will be dealt with. People are resigned to chaos at the minute and frankly its all overblown. That's why Brexit isn't such a big deal as people make out - the fundamentals of tax and spend, economic management etc matter far, far more than the constitution and 'heart' issues.

5. We'll see. Johnson could afford rewrite his Cabinet as he pleased in his first reshuffle after the election, he had bountiful political capital after winning the 80 seat majority and Javid to be frank didn't really have much backing. With Sunak as popular as he is now, with Johnson having gone through rough and tumble of politics that has taken the shine off his 80 seat majority, that is no longer the case now. If he were to sack Sunak he would be putting the polling and betting favourite for his successor on the backbenches - hardly a conducive move! I suspect that, barring something extraordinary like a major scandal, Sunak is now the one person Johnson literally can not sack anymore.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/lizrawlings/status/1300919658158137345?s=21

But it will be resisted as long as Boris is PM

A clever idea that Johnson could put into effect would be to let Sunak take over as prime minister for 6 months to see how he gets on in the job.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

Which elections have you not voted Labour?

I’ve only voted Labour in one election - 2019.

Gallowgate said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

Which elections have you not voted Labour?

I’ve only voted Labour in one election - 2019.

Then I am guilty of traducing you.
For which I apologise as a genuine mistake.

Does anyone have a link to this story everyone is talking about? I can only read the headline on the Tweet.

And is the £2bn employment scheme referred to this one that was announced back in July? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53324201

Anyone catch the end of Newsnight just now? Nice interview of Will Young with Kirsty Wark. Ended quite philosophically. Brought to mind the last line of Voltaire’s Candide. “Let us cultivate our garden”.

But being a bit deaf, I couldn’t make out what they finally said to each other. He’s enjoyed growing tomatoes in lockdown and now feels that he is a garden? Or a gardener? Or both?

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?

Jeez.

Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.

Unless something new is in the process of being announced I think people are misunderstanding this.

The fully paid for 6 months is based on an apprenticeship for existing £1000 for 16-18yo plus 19-25 yo with special needs.

The new bit annouced in July was £2000 for under 25s or £1500 for 25 and over.

That gives £3k over 6 months which is enough to pay them NMW for apprentices of £4.15.

The gap in funding between a 23 yo (without special needs) and 28yo is just £500, so unlikely to make a difference in recruitment. Apprentices would need to be training off the job at least 20% of their time, its not a normal job.

If you could just recruit any under 25s for free for six months it would be extremely generous, but would be amazed if thats the case.

stjohn said:

Anyone catch the end of Newsnight just now? Nice interview of Will Young with Kirsty Wark. Ended quite philosophically. Brought to mind the last line of Voltaire’s Candide. “Let us cultivate our garden”.

But being a bit deaf, I couldn’t make out what they finally said to each other. He’s enjoyed growing tomatoes in lockdown and now feels that he is a garden? Or a gardener? Or both?

Yes interesting interview, he has had a difficult time recently as his brother died earlier this month so if gardening helps bring some peace all to the good

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/lizrawlings/status/1300919658158137345?s=21

It's actually easier to resist, for selfish reasons, the better Sindy looks like doing, but it wouldn't be a good thing to resist at that point.

NickPalmer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alistair said:

Gallowgate said:

Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.

No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.

We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.

Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure

Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters

I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stuart,_1st_Viscount_Stuart_of_Findhorn

The wheel turns in time for us all.

Sounds like you are almost as posh as Charles, if not more so then Nick P if your father's cousin was a Viscount and a son of the Earl of Moray

Andy_JS said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.

Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/lizrawlings/status/1300919658158137345?s=21

But it will be resisted as long as Boris is PM

Well I assume he will want to outdo Walpole, so 2041?

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.

Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.

There are other polls that show Trump well ahead in TX, but it all depends on sampling and weighting. If polls are truly over compensating for 2016 by upweighting "shy Trumpers" then Trump is in trouble there. Lose TX, and he has a mountain to climb.

http://www.pluralvote.com/article/2020-forecast/state/?q=TX

justin124 said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.

Nevertheless I suspect there are plenty of people who retain party membership and yet swing in their vote more than such membership would imply, particularly when it comes to various types of election at different levels.

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.

Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.

Some Americans are numerically challenged.

Edit: Trump’s referring to the embedded national poll which has him on 46 and Biden on 49.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1300921475713597447?s=21

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

They are surprisingly good numbers for Biden in GA and AZ. Biden seems to be doing relatively better than par in the sun belt states and slightly below par in the snow and rust belt.

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

Andy_JS said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1300810644803874820

Biden back at evens.

Biden is almost guaranteed to take Arizona based on the polling.

Let's not risk it. Get Biden to Minnesota now!!!

No worries, Minnesota is being targetted by Biden as a named defence state.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616

Arizona and Georgia would be bigly.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.

Texas would be bigger still...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09

I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.

Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.

There are other polls that show Trump well ahead in TX, but it all depends on sampling and weighting. If polls are truly over compensating for 2016 by upweighting "shy Trumpers" then Trump is in trouble there. Lose TX, and he has a mountain to climb.

http://www.pluralvote.com/article/2020-forecast/state/?q=TX

To continue this theme, 538 overestimated Republicans by 0.8% and Under estimated the Dems by 1.5% in 2018 :

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/texas/undefined/

Gallowgate said:

justin124 said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.

I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.

In my life I have voted at GE for Liberals, SDP, Labour, Green, Tories and Lib Dems and been a member of both LD and Labour parties. I don't think that I have changed my views so much as various parties have shifted to the centre, then away from it.

justin124 said:

Gallowgate said:

justin124 said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.

I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.

That is fair enough! I have made the same point to a brother who voted Tory in 2017 because of Corbyn. I am not sure how he voted in 2019 - though it was not Labour. I was surprised to learn back in January that - unlike myself - he had joined the Labour party to vote in the Leadership election. I simply take the view - and I believe HYUFD has made similar comments to Big_G - that if an individual is not sufficiently committed to a party to support its candidates at election time, he/she has no right to any say in its internal affairs. I was a Labour member from 1970 until the end of 1996 , but then discontinued my membership. In all good conscience, I feel able to do as I think fit!

I think it depends upon if you feel able or willing to support the party at this time . . . or prior to a leadership election if you feel able or willing to support the party next time if your preferred candidate would win.

Doing it for trolling purposes is not OK

I joined the Tories a long time ago because I supported the party despite not being keen on its leader at that time (Howard) and appalled by its last elected leader (IDS) and because I wanted a vote next time. I got that vote and cast it for Cameron and was delighted he won and happily supported the party and campaigned for the party the entire time he was leader.

When he was replaced by May I quit the party. I wasn't going to campaign for May and I was disgusted she was chosen.

I don't think joining a party is or should be a life sentence or require a commitment for life. Just a commitment for now.

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Gallowgate said:

I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.

I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.

With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.

Nevertheless I suspect there are plenty of people who retain party membership and yet swing in their vote more than such membership would imply, particularly when it comes to various types of election at different levels.

Probably so - but if 'found out' as Alastair Campbell was in the 2019 Euro elections , they should not be surprised to face expulsion.

That is fair.

HYUFD said:

<

Sounds like you are almost as posh as Charles, if not more so then Nick P if your father's cousin was a Viscount and a son of the Earl of Moray

Yes, I'm the degenerate red sheep of the family . On my dad's side the family tree goes back to Edward III, on my mum's side there's a pre-revolutionary Russian prince. My aunt used to reminisce modestly about the family "country house" being quite pleasant (it was a 50-room castle, going back 750 years - https://www.scotclans.com/scotland/visit-scotland/scottish-castles/scottish-borders/cavers-castle/ ).

Thing is, though, if you go back a few hundred years then everyone's related to everyone, more or less.