Howdy, Stranger!

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

Seasonal factors and the timing of general elections – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Mr. Walker, 'allow ourselves' more debt?

    You mean, allow the succeeding generation to inherit a nation with more debt on its books. You may think that's worthwhile (in context), but those who decide the UK should borrow more will not be the ones to pay it back.

    What's our interest on debt up to now? Few years ago it was around £50bn-ish, I think.

    Yeh, I think you’re profoundly wrong on this.

    U.K. PLC is like a company that is failing to borrow to invest in profitable infrastructure for the future.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818

    On tax seems Rishi is considering taxing building company profits over 25 million to offset the cladding scandal

    Seems about the only sane place to recover the costs from - it's a pity for the few building companies not involved in the classing scandal but I suspect there aren't many such firms.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447
    HYUFD said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Most voters back a wealth tax paid only by the wealthy and not them, what a surprise!
    Yep. It comes down to what is the definition of wealthy and are you in it. As far as I could see nothing was mentioned in the survey as to what wealthy was and I suspect most don't think they are. Once a figure is given I'm guessing that quite a lot might find they are in it and change their mind.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 273
    geoffw said:

    Spring is surely a period of optimism, and perhaps it is the more optimistic political agenda that people go for. In '97 "things can only get better" was the oppositions optimistic and successful pitch. For the Conservative opposition in '79 there was "Don't just hope for a better life. Vote for one." along with the now better known "Labour's not working".

    Cheer up the Conservatives are coming!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984

    TOPPING said:

    re Alec Baldwin presumably the "prop gun" blew up turning it into a frag grenade?

    Almost certainly either -

    a) Got too close and the pressure wave from the muzzle was lethal
    b) Or something lodged in the barrel (See the film The Crow etc)
    But two people were injured.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    edited October 22
    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Walker, that's a legitimate view, but I take issue with the use of 'we'. The 'we' doing the borrowing and the 'we' paying it back are entirely different.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    kinabalu said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sad news.


    Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

    This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.
    Absolutely. A politician who understood that it was all about public service.
    Other than keeping Brown in charge of the economy for his whole time in office, the worst thing about Blair domestically IMHO is the way he treated Frank Field.

    "Think the unthinkable" Blair said. So Frank did, and he was fired as a result.
    Please don't take this as me being churlish - FF is/was an interesting politician with interesting ideas and an independent spirit - but I could never help noticing that he always topped the (imaginary since there wasn't one) list of "Labour MPs liked a lot by people who always vote Tory". I guess there are equivalents the other way. Eg David Gauke. Or maybe that's projection from me since I like David Gauke. There are not too many I like in this Johnson cabinet, sadly. Perhaps none at all. Big shame since respect and affection across the divide is a great thing and we need more of it. Seems there used to be more of it too, unless that's the old 'rose tinting' coming into play.
    Tom Harris was also always a fave with PB Tories. His subsequent 'journey' must be most gratifying for them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited October 22
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sad news.


    Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

    This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.
    I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.
    It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.
    Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818
    edited October 22
    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    Getting it past voters is easy

    2% or even 3% reduction in Employee National insurance rates, and the means to roll any tax as a charge on the property recovered on the sale of the property.

    Yes it would annoy OAPs but hey what party will they vote for instead - a labour party that could increase the rate from 0.x% to 2%+?

    Or as @Gardenwalker points out you remove council tax as the quid pro quo...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Mr. Walker, that's a legitimate view, but I take issue with the use of 'we'. The 'we' doing the borrowing and the 'we' paying it back are entirely different.

    Not really.

    To keep it really, grossly, simplistic:

    Essentially old people in the south have all the money, and they are underfunding young people in the north.

    We should borrow to benefit the young people in the north who will eventually also pay it back.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,043

    Mr. Walker, 'allow ourselves' more debt?

    You mean, allow the succeeding generation to inherit a nation with more debt on its books. You may think that's worthwhile (in context), but those who decide the UK should borrow more will not be the ones to pay it back.

    What's our interest on debt up to now? Few years ago it was around £50bn-ish, I think.

    Yeh, I think you’re profoundly wrong on this.

    U.K. PLC is like a company that is failing to borrow to invest in profitable infrastructure for the future.
    Agreed - we have a tendency to cut spending on what is productive or potentially so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    First

    FIRST!!!

    I WAS FIRST!!!!!

    FIRST.

    I have never been FIRST before.

    I rock.

    Oh yes.

    You lot won't hear the end of this.

    I. Was. First.
    Those who were first shall be last, and those who were last will be first
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    I can imagine her doing all those things, yes.

    I know there is a view that Nandy is “weak” somehow but I genuinely don’t see it.

    I’m critical of 90% of politicians of all stripes, but I think Nandy is smart, level-headed, canny and passionate about the right things.

    Also, people grow into these roles.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
    Would screw large areas of the south up though.

    My parents and I have similar houses (although ours is bigger it has less land). Theirs is worth £1million, ours £200,000 or so.

    The only difference, theirs is £20 and 1 hour by train from London, mine is 2.5 hours and a £300 fare from London
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    8% of secondary school kids testing positive for COVID! That's about 0.7% of them getting infected everyday, herd immunity won't take long at that rate, we may be getting pretty close in that age cohort already.

    What's more interesting is that the age cohort (25-34) that has had a lot of natural infection plus a reasonably good level of vaccination are now sitting at 0.7% in total which is about about 1/140 people testing positive. It could be the case that graduates and young professionals have hit herd immunity.

    It also matches up with my own experience that very few of my colleagues, friends and cousins are getting COVID at the moment.

    I think at most we've got another two weeks of this level of infection and a 10% weekly rise in hospitalisations baked in. That's another 1.6m people into the infection funnel, most of whom won't have been vaccinated.

    If I'm right then we could see a pretty big reduction in cases and hospitalisations in the second half of November running up to Christmas. Now is not the time to panic.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    edited October 22
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
    Would screw large areas of the south up though.

    My parents and I have similar houses (although ours is bigger it has less land). Theirs is worth £1million, ours £200,000 or so.

    The only difference, theirs is £20 and 1 hour by train from London, mine is 2.5 hours and a £300 fare from London
    That’s the whole point.
    Well, not “screwing the South” but taxing those who can afford it best.

    As I believe incomes taxes are a smidgeon too high I would probably couple this with an NI reduction.

    NB. I live in the South and own two properties.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    First

    FIRST!!!

    I WAS FIRST!!!!!

    FIRST.

    I have never been FIRST before.

    I rock.

    Oh yes.

    You lot won't hear the end of this.

    I. Was. First.
    Those who were first shall be last, and those who were last will be first
    Yeah I was building up my lasts to get to today.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    The ideal reason for a May election is because the government has improved your April pay pocket and mentioned the fact continually.

    The issue we have with the next election is that the Tories will gain 10 seats if they wait for the new constituencies (October 2023) but run a risk of events running out of control if they wait until May 2024.

    Hence why November / December 2023 seems the likely time of the next general election.
    I don't think so. The Dec 2019 election was out of the ordinary due to Brexit and the hung parliament. People would understand why they were having an election then.

    If the Tories go for autumn 2023, people will think that it is out of the ordinary. And the media will not disappoint them by explaining why the election is happening then.

    I therefore think May 2024 is the most likely time for the next election.
    I don't know, if the government is doing well then going after four years is pretty normal too. 1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005 were all after four years.

    Pre-FTPA it was losing governments that tended to leave it the full five years. See 1997 and 2010.

    Autumn 2023 is late enough to be within 'normal', early enough that they're not leaving it to the last minute, plus they get the boundaries through. That seems like the sweet spot to me.
    I think May 2023 is late enough to be within 'normal'.
    That's confusing, you just said autumn 2023 wouldn't be within normal but earlier than that is? 🤔

    May 2023 is old boundaries. Autumn 2023 is new boundaries. Once you've reached the normal range it probably makes sense to wait a few months until the proper boundaries are in place.
    No, I didn't say autumn 2023 wasn't within normal. I said that autumn elections are unusual and people would wonder why they were voting then and not in the Spring. And the answer is very simple. The boundaries. And when people realise this, and they will be told by Labour and the media over and over again, they won't be impressed.
    I don't think so, after all Gordon Brown nearly went with an election in the autumn and the media was OK with that until he chickened out.

    The media love an election. It gives them great attention, great coverage, a guaranteed string of stories to report on. The issue in the last few years is public burnout, from 2014 to 2019 the only year without a General Election or Referendum was 2018, hence the "not another one" outburst in 2017 it was the fourth year in a row.

    Come autumn 2023 the last election will be a reasonable time away, people won't have voted in anything major in years. It will be exciting for the media and they'd love it.

    Plus I'm not sure the boundaries will be odd to people. The old set of boundaries are decades out of date, having new ones long overdue isn't unreasonable (especially since there's no reduction in numbers this time) and waiting until up to date ones in place isn't odd.
    You're right to mention the Gordon Brown fiasco. If the Tories want to go for autumn 2023, then they need to announce the date six months out. They absolutely cannot allow a will they/won't they narrative to develop during the year.

    Yes, the media love an election. But they love a close election even more. So don't expect the media to play nice.

    There's nothing wrong with the boundary changes; indeed, I am in favour of them. But if you hold an election in the autumn, people will wonder why it's happening then. The Tories can say "well, we wanted to wait until the new boundaries were in place", which is fine, but the next question is "why not just wait until May 2024?" And the answer? "We're worried things will go to shit before then."

    If you go a year early, no one thinks "oh, they think things are going to go wrong in the next year." Going a year early was what Thatcher and Blair did. People are fine with it. But if you hold an election outside of the usual period, people will wonder what the government is worried about.
    Actually I think "will they, won't they" narrative works perfectly to counter this.

    The problem isn't that a will they, won't they narrative took hold in 2007 its that it took hold so comprehensively and then Brown and co showed so much leg that the message stopped being "will they, won't they" to "they will". Then they didn't. The infamous "shortly there will be an election" article summed up this hubris.

    A lot of elections have been called following months of "will they, won't they" narrative and when that happens then nobody says "why now?" Because the months of "will they, won't they" has already normalised the idea of an upcoming election meaning that when it finally gets called its not a shock anymore. The lack of any such narrative possibly played into why May's disastrous election came as such a bolt from the blue. Nobody was expecting it to be called.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Pulpstar said:

    FPT on rationing in the NHS for behavioural reasons...

    https://www.nhsinform.scot/tests-and-treatments/surgical-procedures/liver-transplant
    For example, you may not be able to have a transplant if you are unable to stop misusing alcohol

    That’s different (he says having missed the last thread)

    Inability to stop misusing alcohol reduces the probability of a successful transplant. It is therefore optimal to allocate a scarce liver to someone with a higher probability of success (same with age screening, etc). It’s to do with QALY calculations

    Refusing treatment because you feel someone has taken a risk that has no bearing on treatment outcomes is a different moral decision.

    The whole principle of the NHS is universal healthcare free at the point of need. Not “free at the point of need provided that we approve of your life choices”. Tamper with that at your peril

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    First

    FIRST!!!

    I WAS FIRST!!!!!

    FIRST.

    I have never been FIRST before.

    I rock.

    Oh yes.

    You lot won't hear the end of this.

    I. Was. First.
    Those who were first shall be last, and those who were last will be first
    Yeah I was building up my lasts to get to today.
    Indeed. Off the peg footwear has never really worked for me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited October 22

    kinabalu said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sad news.


    Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

    This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.
    Absolutely. A politician who understood that it was all about public service.
    Other than keeping Brown in charge of the economy for his whole time in office, the worst thing about Blair domestically IMHO is the way he treated Frank Field.

    "Think the unthinkable" Blair said. So Frank did, and he was fired as a result.
    Please don't take this as me being churlish - FF is/was an interesting politician with interesting ideas and an independent spirit - but I could never help noticing that he always topped the (imaginary since there wasn't one) list of "Labour MPs liked a lot by people who always vote Tory". I guess there are equivalents the other way. Eg David Gauke. Or maybe that's projection from me since I like David Gauke. There are not too many I like in this Johnson cabinet, sadly. Perhaps none at all. Big shame since respect and affection across the divide is a great thing and we need more of it. Seems there used to be more of it too, unless that's the old 'rose tinting' coming into play.
    Tom Harris was also always a fave with PB Tories. His subsequent 'journey' must be most gratifying for them.
    Just checked him out. There's a link to your town, I see. Think I get the picture because wiki gives me this -

    "In March 2016 he replaced Dan Hodges as a daily commentator for The Daily Telegraph."

    Oh.

    Must have ability, though, because he is now advising the government, sorry This Tory Government, on "Scottish affairs".
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,420
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sad news.


    Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

    This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.
    I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.
    It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.
    Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.
    Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

    I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Kiss of death for Lisa.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483
    kinabalu said:

    AlistairM said:

    Sad news.


    Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

    This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.
    I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.
    Note assisted dying only came in in Canada in 2016 under a Liberal government, is coming in in New Zealand only under the current Labour government and in Spain in 2021 under the current Socialist government.

    The bill going through the Lords does not have government support and will not be given priority to get through the Commons and most Conservative MPs will vote against. So it will almost certainly fail and euthanasia would then have to wait for a future Labour government to be passed into law
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447
    edited October 22
    MaxPB said:

    8% of secondary school kids testing positive for COVID! That's about 0.7% of them getting infected everyday, herd immunity won't take long at that rate, we may be getting pretty close in that age cohort already.

    What's more interesting is that the age cohort (25-34) that has had a lot of natural infection plus a reasonably good level of vaccination are now sitting at 0.7% in total which is about about 1/140 people testing positive. It could be the case that graduates and young professionals have hit herd immunity.

    It also matches up with my own experience that very few of my colleagues, friends and cousins are getting COVID at the moment.

    I think at most we've got another two weeks of this level of infection and a 10% weekly rise in hospitalisations baked in. That's another 1.6m people into the infection funnel, most of whom won't have been vaccinated.

    If I'm right then we could see a pretty big reduction in cases and hospitalisations in the second half of November running up to Christmas. Now is not the time to panic.

    I am aware of quite a few people in my age group (60 - 70) who have got Covid in the last month (More than ever before. Prior to then it was just one). All double vaxed and all with mild symptoms except one who ended up in intensive care. If I had to pick one for whom that would have been the case it was him. He is not the healthiest of individuals. He is out now but still quite poorly. The rest are reporting mild flu symptoms and loss of taste.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483
    edited October 22

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
    Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She seems like a beacon of rectitude and competence compared the incumbent fat lying sack of jizz. So, yes, I can.
    Fair dos, 'fat lying sack of jizz' beats 'over-promoted foreign secretary'.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,973
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    Not sure about Nandy as leader, but compared to the current music hall clown we have in Downing Street, she would be fine. Maybe she would morph into our own, but left of centre, Angela Merkel.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,332
    LD hold in Horsham with 47% of the vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    Why? Thatcher was a woman and the strongest leader we have had on the world stage since WW2.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Bozo also looks more like he has escaped from the circus than Nandy. Or just about anyone else in parliament.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,973
    Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    edited October 22
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT on rationing in the NHS for behavioural reasons...

    https://www.nhsinform.scot/tests-and-treatments/surgical-procedures/liver-transplant
    For example, you may not be able to have a transplant if you are unable to stop misusing alcohol

    That’s different (he says having missed the last thread)

    Inability to stop misusing alcohol reduces the probability of a successful transplant. It is therefore optimal to allocate a scarce liver to someone with a higher probability of success (same with age screening, etc). It’s to do with QALY calculations

    Refusing treatment because you feel someone has taken a risk that has no bearing on treatment outcomes is a different moral decision.

    The whole principle of the NHS is universal healthcare free at the point of need. Not “free at the point of need provided that we approve of your life choices”. Tamper with that at your peril

    Well said.

    If nothing else, you'd finding all the doctors refusing to deny treatment - on the basis of the medical ethics they've been trained in.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483
    edited October 22

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    Not sure about Nandy as leader, but compared to the current music hall clown we have in Downing Street, she would be fine. Maybe she would morph into our own, but left of centre, Angela Merkel.
    Merkel was far brighter and tougher than Nandy is, Nandy is also even duller than Merkel
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    I don't think so. The subject of the discussion was a woman, unless you can't make those comments about any potential female political leader. It's simply true that some men and women don't fit the typical mould.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    I think you’re very wrong.

    And what’s matter, you have no confected statistics to back you up.

    So we’ll just have to disagree.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 940

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    People think he is a halfwit, but he is actually a wit and a half.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    Not sure about Nandy as leader, but compared to the current music hall clown we have in Downing Street, she would be fine. Maybe she would morph into our own, but left of centre, Angela Merkel.
    Merkel was far brighter than Nandy is, Nandy is also even duller than Merkel
    When the board’s most partisan Tory starts squealing, it tells me I’m onto something.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    I don't think so. The subject of the discussion was a woman, unless you can't make those comments about any potential female political leader. It's simply true that some men and women don't fit the typical mould.
    It seems a bit literal minded. In no sense except avoirdupois could anyone call Johnson a heavyweight.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    Getting it past voters is easy

    2% or even 3% reduction in Employee National insurance rates, and the means to roll any tax as a charge on the property recovered on the sale of the property.

    Yes it would annoy OAPs but hey what party will they vote for instead - a labour party that could increase the rate from 0.x% to 2%+?

    Or as @Gardenwalker points out you remove council tax as the quid pro quo...
    Maybe. And I'm in favour. I think the big picture is a choice between taxing private wealth (including of those who would insist they are merely "comfortable") or accepting a big reduction in the scope and quality of public services. But no way will it be "easy" imo. Anything to do with someone's house in this country is super super sensitive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    Indeed it does. Female leaders often don’t get rated as up to the job until they get it - true for Thatcher, Ahern, Merkel. Interestingly May was thought up to the job, but wasnt.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    I grant you he is more charismatic. As far as globally recognised that comes with the roles (PM, For Sec, Mayor of London) so one can't compare until both are in them. Probably nobody outside of the UK had heard of Margaret Thatcher when she was Ed Sec. More intelligent? How do you know? He is possibly better educated, but that isn't the same thing and I don't even know if that is true.

    I agree Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy, but all the above applies.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    I don't think so. The subject of the discussion was a woman, unless you can't make those comments about any potential female political leader. It's simply true that some men and women don't fit the typical mould.
    It seems a bit literal minded. In no sense except avoirdupois could anyone call Johnson a heavyweight.
    He has the incumbency bonus.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    Why? Thatcher was a woman and the strongest leader we have had on the world stage since WW2.
    But few of you Tories thought she was up to the job before she got it, and she only got it through accident.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    eek said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    The ideal reason for a May election is because the government has improved your April pay pocket and mentioned the fact continually.

    The issue we have with the next election is that the Tories will gain 10 seats if they wait for the new constituencies (October 2023) but run a risk of events running out of control if they wait until May 2024.

    Hence why November / December 2023 seems the likely time of the next general election.
    I don't think so. The Dec 2019 election was out of the ordinary due to Brexit and the hung parliament. People would understand why they were having an election then.

    If the Tories go for autumn 2023, people will think that it is out of the ordinary. And the media will not disappoint them by explaining why the election is happening then.

    I therefore think May 2024 is the most likely time for the next election.
    I don't know, if the government is doing well then going after four years is pretty normal too. 1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005 were all after four years.

    Pre-FTPA it was losing governments that tended to leave it the full five years. See 1997 and 2010.

    Autumn 2023 is late enough to be within 'normal', early enough that they're not leaving it to the last minute, plus they get the boundaries through. That seems like the sweet spot to me.
    I think May 2023 is late enough to be within 'normal'.
    That's confusing, you just said autumn 2023 wouldn't be within normal but earlier than that is? 🤔

    May 2023 is old boundaries. Autumn 2023 is new boundaries. Once you've reached the normal range it probably makes sense to wait a few months until the proper boundaries are in place.
    No, I didn't say autumn 2023 wasn't within normal. I said that autumn elections are unusual and people would wonder why they were voting then and not in the Spring. And the answer is very simple. The boundaries. And when people realise this, and they will be told by Labour and the media over and over again, they won't be impressed.
    I don't think so, after all Gordon Brown nearly went with an election in the autumn and the media was OK with that until he chickened out.

    The media love an election. It gives them great attention, great coverage, a guaranteed string of stories to report on. The issue in the last few years is public burnout, from 2014 to 2019 the only year without a General Election or Referendum was 2018, hence the "not another one" outburst in 2017 it was the fourth year in a row.

    Come autumn 2023 the last election will be a reasonable time away, people won't have voted in anything major in years. It will be exciting for the media and they'd love it.

    Plus I'm not sure the boundaries will be odd to people. The old set of boundaries are decades out of date, having new ones long overdue isn't unreasonable (especially since there's no reduction in numbers this time) and waiting until up to date ones in place isn't odd.
    You're right to mention the Gordon Brown fiasco. If the Tories want to go for autumn 2023, then they need to announce the date six months out. They absolutely cannot allow a will they/won't they narrative to develop during the year.

    Yes, the media love an election. But they love a close election even more. So don't expect the media to play nice.

    There's nothing wrong with the boundary changes; indeed, I am in favour of them. But if you hold an election in the autumn, people will wonder why it's happening then. The Tories can say "well, we wanted to wait until the new boundaries were in place", which is fine, but the next question is "why not just wait until May 2024?" And the answer? "We're worried things will go to shit before then."

    If you go a year early, no one thinks "oh, they think things are going to go wrong in the next year." Going a year early was what Thatcher and Blair did. People are fine with it. But if you hold an election outside of the usual period, people will wonder what the government is worried about.
    Actually I think "will they, won't they" narrative works perfectly to counter this.

    The problem isn't that a will they, won't they narrative took hold in 2007 its that it took hold so comprehensively and then Brown and co showed so much leg that the message stopped being "will they, won't they" to "they will". Then they didn't. The infamous "shortly there will be an election" article summed up this hubris.

    A lot of elections have been called following months of "will they, won't they" narrative and when that happens then nobody says "why now?" Because the months of "will they, won't they" has already normalised the idea of an upcoming election meaning that when it finally gets called its not a shock anymore. The lack of any such narrative possibly played into why May's disastrous election came as such a bolt from the blue. Nobody was expecting it to be called.
    The problem with May was that she kept it to herself and her close advisers. The manifesto was all them and no one said "this is a bad idea" with regards to social care.

    I'm not sure I agree with you about the saga playing to the government's advantage, but what I am certain of is that if they allow it to build up, then it has to happen. Chickening out would be even worse.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT on rationing in the NHS for behavioural reasons...

    https://www.nhsinform.scot/tests-and-treatments/surgical-procedures/liver-transplant
    For example, you may not be able to have a transplant if you are unable to stop misusing alcohol

    That’s different (he says having missed the last thread)

    Inability to stop misusing alcohol reduces the probability of a successful transplant. It is therefore optimal to allocate a scarce liver to someone with a higher probability of success (same with age screening, etc). It’s to do with QALY calculations

    Refusing treatment because you feel someone has taken a risk that has no bearing on treatment outcomes is a different moral decision.

    The whole principle of the NHS is universal healthcare free at the point of need. Not “free at the point of need provided that we approve of your life choices”. Tamper with that at your peril

    Well said.

    If nothing else, you'd finding all the doctors refusing to deny treatment - on the basis of the medical ethics they've been trained in.....
    Triage the fuckers out before a doctor sets eyes on them, then.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Heavyweight? How very dare you!

    We might see Johnson as an hilarious comedian, the rest of the world seems to view him through the prism of casual incompetence and diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe.

    I am not sure that some of your well documented stereotypical prejudices regarding women with a backstory haven't fallen through into your post.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493

    Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?

    I don't think that works. I'd that were the case, you'd expect to see much higher relative prevalence among the upper age brackets than you actually do see.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Boris is not stupid.

    But he’s not an intellectual either, despite his occasinal Latin prattling.

    He is profoundly uninterested in anything but himself - as countless observers and colleagues have attested.

    Nandy seems perfectly intelligent to me.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    So did Berlusconi. So what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    Why? Thatcher was a woman and the strongest leader we have had on the world stage since WW2.
    But few of you Tories thought she was up to the job before she got it, and she only got it through accident.
    The idea Nandy is the next Thatcher is laughable, she is not even the next Harriet Harman
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    Not sure about Nandy as leader, but compared to the current music hall clown we have in Downing Street, she would be fine. Maybe she would morph into our own, but left of centre, Angela Merkel.
    Merkel was far brighter and tougher than Nandy is, Nandy is also even duller than Merkel
    The first is likely true, but the second simply unveils the bias that informs most of your posts here. She is actually quite interesting.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Cookie said:

    Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?

    I don't think that works. I'd that were the case, you'd expect to see much higher relative prevalence among the upper age brackets than you actually do see.
    It's almost as if people are wilfully ignoring the different testing rates. Positivity in the UK is nothing special, about a third less than Germany's.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    I don't think so. The subject of the discussion was a woman, unless you can't make those comments about any potential female political leader. It's simply true that some men and women don't fit the typical mould.
    It seems a bit literal minded. In no sense except avoirdupois could anyone call Johnson a heavyweight.
    He has the incumbency bonus.
    That certainly tips the scales
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    So did Berlusconi. So what?
    Berlusconi was a leader for years too. So what?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,483
    edited October 22

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Heavyweight? How very dare you!

    We might see Johnson as an hilarious comedian, the rest of the world seems to view him through the prism of casual incompetence and diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe.

    I am not sure that some of your well documented stereotypical prejudices regarding women with a backstory haven't fallen through the net in your post.
    Who got Brexit done? Boris. Who played a pivotal role in the US and Australia deal to contain China? Boris. Who led the world on getting vaccines out? Boris. Who is hosting the world at the COP26 climate summit? Boris. Boris gets things done
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    Not sure about Nandy as leader, but compared to the current music hall clown we have in Downing Street, she would be fine. Maybe she would morph into our own, but left of centre, Angela Merkel.
    Merkel was far brighter than Nandy is, Nandy is also even duller than Merkel
    When the board’s most partisan Tory starts squealing, it tells me I’m onto something.
    Doesn't Nandy want a Catalonia style solution to nationalism in Scotland?

    I think her and HYUFD may have some common ground there..
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    So did Berlusconi. So what?
    Berlusconi was a leader for years too. So what?
    So notoriety fails to correlate with personal or political merit.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,420
    MaxPB said:

    8% of secondary school kids testing positive for COVID! That's about 0.7% of them getting infected everyday, herd immunity won't take long at that rate, we may be getting pretty close in that age cohort already.

    What's more interesting is that the age cohort (25-34) that has had a lot of natural infection plus a reasonably good level of vaccination are now sitting at 0.7% in total which is about about 1/140 people testing positive. It could be the case that graduates and young professionals have hit herd immunity.

    It also matches up with my own experience that very few of my colleagues, friends and cousins are getting COVID at the moment.

    I think at most we've got another two weeks of this level of infection and a 10% weekly rise in hospitalisations baked in. That's another 1.6m people into the infection funnel, most of whom won't have been vaccinated.

    If I'm right then we could see a pretty big reduction in cases and hospitalisations in the second half of November running up to Christmas. Now is not the time to panic.

    It may even be better/quicker than that, the rate in secondary school kids is 7.8% down slightly form last weeks 8.1% (but very much in the Margin of error). meaning that perhaps secondary school kids have now passed the HIT, and therefor will contuse to fall from now on, meaning that the half term may be perfectly timed to dramatically lower the rate in school kids, just at the point where they will not start rising again when they go back. and therefor the tranmition to there parents generation to slowdown dramatically.

    The ONS servery is here (figer 4) https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/nowcasting-and-forecasting-20th-october-2021/

    Really hoping this is right, and as you say this is not the time to panic, just hold on and 'Wight nuchal' the nest 10 days to 2 weeks, when the increase in reported cases/hospitalisations is backed in.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 940
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    You are judging people against a pre Trump idea of world leadership. I think that now, pretty much anything goes. Nandy strikes me as someone who comes across as quite sensible, down to earth and serious. Whether that is what the world wants or needs; I don't know anymore.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477

    Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?

    It was the right choice to vaccinate with AZ because it was what we had available at the time.
    But the fact is the neutralising efficacy is lower than Pfizer or Moderna, a 3rd dose of which has a ~ 76 x increase in potency over the second jab !

    The Gov't seems to have given up on trying to control infections else it would be offering boosters to everyone post 6 months and pushing out a proper 12 - 17 rollout.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
    Trump! Another of your weird role models.

    He looked completely out of place with other world leaders, hence Johnson, Macron and Trudeau taking the rise out of him at the G8 a year or two ago.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.
    But leading is about getting publicity.

    Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

    The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

    You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
    I think Trump looked like a buffoon to all world leaders. The concern of other world leaders is they had no idea what he was going to do or say. That was his biggest impact on them.

    Re Nandy I agree she has zero impact but that is because she isn't in that roles or any meaningful role on the world stage. We just don't know what she may be like. She may be brilliant, she may be a damp squib.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?

    I don't think that works. I'd that were the case, you'd expect to see much higher relative prevalence among the upper age brackets than you actually do see.
    It's almost as if people are wilfully ignoring the different testing rates. Positivity in the UK is nothing special, about a third less than Germany's.
    Germany seems to be roughly double -

    https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Share+of+positive+tests&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=DEU~GBR
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Boris is a joke.

    Just like Trump, Berlusconi, and that Toronto Mayor who was on the crackpipe.

    All of them surprisingly popular despite or perhaps because of their clown-act.

    None of this has much to do with Nandy herself, except that I think - apart from Nandy being smarter and more charismatic than Keir - Boris would likely struggle (even) more against a female opponent.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    So did Berlusconi. So what?
    Berlusconi was a leader for years too. So what?
    So notoriety fails to correlate with personal or political merit.
    Quite the opposite.

    I suspect notoriety is positively correlated with leadership.

    Being a world leader isn't about "merit", personal or otherwise, and notoriety can certainly be gained from leadership.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    F1: may see 8 race weekends blighted by the pestilence of sprint races:
    https://twitter.com/wtf1official/status/1445029728927236105
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493
    Brilliant header piece @Fishing . Articles like this are one of the reasons I come to pbc.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Heavyweight? How very dare you!

    We might see Johnson as an hilarious comedian, the rest of the world seems to view him through the prism of casual incompetence and diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe.

    I am not sure that some of your well documented stereotypical prejudices regarding women with a backstory haven't fallen through the net in your post.
    Who got Brexit done? Boris. Who played a pivotal role in the US and Australia deal to contain China? Boris. Who led the world on getting vaccines out? Boris. Who is hosting the world at the COP26 climate summit? Boris. Boris gets things done
    🎵 STRONG BORIS 🎵 GREAT NATION 🎵

    You're going to make squareroot jealous. He does the Johnson tromboning round here.
  • @billybragg
    Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
    https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.
    But leading is about getting publicity.

    Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

    The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

    You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.
    But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

    Which isn’t going to end happily.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
    Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.
    Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
    I think Trump looked like a buffoon to all world leaders. The concern of other world leaders is they had no idea what he was going to do or say. That was his biggest impact on them.

    Re Nandy I agree she has zero impact but that is because she isn't in that roles or any meaningful role on the world stage. We just don't know what she may be like. She may be brilliant, she may be a damp squib.
    You should follow her on Twitter or something.
    She’s by far the soundest of the various Labour (non-)entities.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
    Not having that until BJ is Time Man* of the Year.
    He'll then be in the big boys' league with Hitler, Trump, Stalin and Putin.

    *Should of course be Person of the Year but I sense you're a traditionalist on this issue.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    F1: may see 8 race weekends blighted by the pestilence of sprint races:
    https://twitter.com/wtf1official/status/1445029728927236105

    Of all the qualifying formats, I think single lap was the best. It meant TV got to see each driver do their qualifying lap, which we don't get when they're all on the track at the same time.

    Agree that sprint races for qualifying are a bit silly.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    The ONS infection survey still shows the rate to be flat for the oldest cohort, showing no real evidence of a waning of protection amongst those who were vaccinated the earliest.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Boris is only a heavyweight in debauchery.
    He’s a global joke, and not in a good way.
    He is the most recognised and impactful PM we have had on the world stage in my lifetime after Thatcher and Blair.

    Nandy would be the most lightweight PM we have ever had, world leaders elsewhere would run rings around her
    Trump was pretty recognised and impactful..
    He was, he also looked more like a world leader than Nandy.

    You may have hated his agenda but he knew how to push his agenda on the world stage and be tough with other world leaders when needed
    Not having that until BJ is Time Man of the Year.
    He'll then be in the big boys' league with Hitler, Trump, Stalin and Putin.
    That would be hilarious.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    @billybragg
    Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
    https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

    More evidence that mask wearing has a significant element of virtue-signaling attached to it now.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    Heavyweight? How very dare you!

    We might see Johnson as an hilarious comedian, the rest of the world seems to view him through the prism of casual incompetence and diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe.

    I am not sure that some of your well documented stereotypical prejudices regarding women with a backstory haven't fallen through the net in your post.
    Who got Brexit done? Boris. Who played a pivotal role in the US and Australia deal to contain China? Boris. Who led the world on getting vaccines out? Boris. Who is hosting the world at the COP26 climate summit? Boris. Boris gets things done
    a) Is Brexit done? (renegotiation of the deal is ongoing) b) Some say a deal that provoked China c)...and is now under pressure for a tardy roll-out of 3rd doses d) It remains to be seen whether COP26 is a diplomatic triumph. Early signs are not yet over- inspirational.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    edited October 22
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    That sounds a bit sexist.
    Indeed it does. Female leaders often don’t get rated as up to the job until they get it - true for Thatcher, Ahern, Merkel. Interestingly May was thought up to the job, but wasnt.
    Ahern? Bertie? I know gender is a fluid thing nowadays, but pretty sure he identified as male when he was Taoiseach

    Edit: Or is it a typo for Ardern?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    IanB2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

    In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

    In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

    So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

    That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

    But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?
    But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

    The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.
    Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.
    Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.
    Strategy is clear.

    Tax rises now.
    Tax cuts before election.

    Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

    We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
    - health (an insatiable maw)
    - education
    - defence
    Sounds about right.

    And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

    Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.
    Well, it’s baked in.

    Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

    As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.
    Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19
    Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
    WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.
    "They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.
    I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.
    Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.
    Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.
    Yes, so put it up to 2% and cut NI accordingly (by about half).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    BigRich said:

    MaxPB said:

    8% of secondary school kids testing positive for COVID! That's about 0.7% of them getting infected everyday, herd immunity won't take long at that rate, we may be getting pretty close in that age cohort already.

    What's more interesting is that the age cohort (25-34) that has had a lot of natural infection plus a reasonably good level of vaccination are now sitting at 0.7% in total which is about about 1/140 people testing positive. It could be the case that graduates and young professionals have hit herd immunity.

    It also matches up with my own experience that very few of my colleagues, friends and cousins are getting COVID at the moment.

    I think at most we've got another two weeks of this level of infection and a 10% weekly rise in hospitalisations baked in. That's another 1.6m people into the infection funnel, most of whom won't have been vaccinated.

    If I'm right then we could see a pretty big reduction in cases and hospitalisations in the second half of November running up to Christmas. Now is not the time to panic.

    It may even be better/quicker than that, the rate in secondary school kids is 7.8% down slightly form last weeks 8.1% (but very much in the Margin of error). meaning that perhaps secondary school kids have now passed the HIT, and therefor will contuse to fall from now on, meaning that the half term may be perfectly timed to dramatically lower the rate in school kids, just at the point where they will not start rising again when they go back. and therefor the tranmition to there parents generation to slowdown dramatically.

    The ONS servery is here (figer 4) https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/nowcasting-and-forecasting-20th-october-2021/

    Really hoping this is right, and as you say this is not the time to panic, just hold on and 'Wight nuchal' the nest 10 days to 2 weeks, when the increase in reported cases/hospitalisations is backed in.
    15-19 has joined (pretty much) the other vaccinated groups.

    image

    It's 10-14 where it's all happening.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    So did Berlusconi. So what?
    Berlusconi was a leader for years too. So what?
    So notoriety fails to correlate with personal or political merit.
    Quite the opposite.

    I suspect notoriety is positively correlated with leadership.

    Being a world leader isn't about "merit", personal or otherwise, and notoriety can certainly be gained from leadership.
    Converging rather rapidly on der Fuehrerprinzip here.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited October 22
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

    Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

    https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

    But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

    Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

    Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

    She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway
    At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.
    Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too
    What on Earth have you been taking?

    He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.
    You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

    Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

    Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.
    Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.
    But leading is about getting publicity.

    Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

    The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

    You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.
    But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

    Which isn’t going to end happily.
    What are the issues he's led on and how have they worked out?

    London - the Olympics were a success.

    Brexit Campaign - he won against all expectations.

    Brexit Negotiations - he got a new deal without the backstop that almost everyone except myself said was impossible to get.

    Trade Negotiations - he got a new deal with Barnier and von der Leyen folding on almost every disputed issue in the end.

    Northern Ireland - Managed to get Article 16 into the Brexit Negotiations which is now being used to ratchet an even better agreement despite Ireland and Europe's misgivings.

    Covid - First major country in the world to have vaccines. First country in Europe to lift all legal restrictions.

    No doubt you could draw up a similar list spinning everything I have written as good as bad. But that's a difference of opinion not a matter of fact.
This discussion has been closed.