Polls like this make a confidence vote more likely – politicalbetting.com

Jonathan said:

What if Putin declares

Stocky said:

A questions about the next GE. Is a minority government feasible? Even in the short term?

Let's say CP wins most seats but no majority and no CP partnership with other parties is possible. Can CP decide to govern on a minority basis or would the fact that the LP COULD form a majority with other parties take precedent?

Secondly, I know that a minority government is unsustainable but if no party could get a coalition or other partnership with other parties could the CP say there must be another GE in three months and we will govern on minority basis until then?

This has significance for betting purposes.

The incumbent has first dibs at forming a government, but under your scenario would not be able to pass bills. If they tried it would fail and then have to recommend the LoO try to form a government. If they can agree confidence and supply with other parties, they will proceed. If not , if no other government is possible we go back to the polls.

Yes I get that but under your scenario the Next Government market (Smarkets) would settle as "CP Minority" - even though this would be short-lived. But how likely is this? I'm trying to make sense of the Smarkets market which has LP Minority and Conservative Minority heading the market with a combined probability of almost 70%.

CarlottaVance said:

Someone at the New York Times sits bolt upright.

- Russian media is now warning that food insecurity will lead to cannibalism in Britain

https://twitter.com/phil_tinline/status/1529583045937864706

Will any bookie now open a market on which famous Briton will be first to be scoffed?

HYUFD said:

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
1h
Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.

https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1529925929417383936

They are still looking good for that landslide congress win though aren’t they?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

I really like the Grade Filter on 538. It served us well during the Presidentials when some dodgy pro-GOP pollsters were basically cooking the books to suit their narrative.

I would love Mike or the powers at, say, Britain Elects or Politico, to do something similar over here: Grade the pollsters on the same kind of criteria that 538 use.

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

MarqueeMark said:

Aslan said:

Jonathan said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

geoffw said:

The NYT, scourge of Brexit no less, getting two barrels from the Kyiv Independent for its "veiled manifesto of appeasement".
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/editorial-the-kyiv-independents-response-to-the-new-york-times-editorial-board/

"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."

Spiky.

The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.

A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.

It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.

The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.

Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.

Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.

Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.

So it all comes down to the USA holding its nerve, even if the unity of the current alliance fractures, given how much they provide.

MoonRabbit said:

Andy_JS said:

Redbridge / Mayfield

Athwal, Jas Labour Party 2349 Elected
Khan, Tanweer Akhtar Labour Party 2148 Elected
Solanki, Vanisha Surendra Labour Party 2125 Elected
............................................................................................................................
Corbin, Carol Conservative Party Candidate 525
Begum, Maria Conservative Party Candidate 470
Khushi Pasha, Masood Conservative Party Candidate 360
Khanam, Sufia Liberal Democrats 229
Hussain, Majad Independent Network 218

https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/voting-and-elections/2022-local-election-results-summary/

Election in solid Labour Ward, nothing to see here, show me a marginal.

Cons lost a seat they were defending in North Kesteven last night: since May 5th, the Cons have defended five and lost all five. Something is starting to smell like 1997...

Foxy said:

MoonRabbit said:

Aslan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aslan said:

Jonathan said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

geoffw said:

The NYT, scourge of Brexit no less, getting two barrels from the Kyiv Independent for its "veiled manifesto of appeasement".
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/editorial-the-kyiv-independents-response-to-the-new-york-times-editorial-board/

"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."

Spiky.

The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.

A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.

It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.

The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.

Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.

Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.

Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.

Even if the coward alliance buckles, you still have the US, UK and Poland shipping in weapons. And Putin is going to try to hold the land bridge to Crimea too. That will be too many Ukrainians to pacify.

You are spot on Aslan, taking it one thing, holding it another. That Putin take Donbas isn’t certain the slow speed it going and the expense involved, but even if did, they are sitting ducks at pheasant shoot to chaos Ukraine counter offensive has coming at them.

Taking it back won't be easy. Modern warfare seeems to have evolved to favour the defender once more, and the supply lines will be more robust than outside Kyiv. Establishing Ukranian air supremacy and offensive capability is not a short term possibility.

Yes, without a collapse of Russian morale (and despite reports no matter how dispirited they might be they still follow orders enough at present) they could make it very tough no doubt.

Sunak wants to build a strong UK economy, he said today. But there is a problem

Britain isn't working

Why?
Some can't get out of bed
Some can't be arsed
Some can't work here because Brexit

None of this bodes well

My column

https://www.ft.com/content/a91ed719-a95a-45ee-aa5a-db8ecb550561

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Someone at the New York Times sits bolt upright.

- Russian media is now warning that food insecurity will lead to cannibalism in Britain

https://twitter.com/phil_tinline/status/1529583045937864706

Will any bookie now open a market on which famous Briton will be first to be scoffed?

They're all too skinny. You want proper marbled flesh.

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Guns...

Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.

The Second Amendment is brief and its purpose is clear, as the quote above illustrates.

It does NOT mean anybody can arm themselves anywhere and anyhow they like. You cannot park a tank on your front lawn or install a thermonuclear device in your garden shed because the State reserves the right to designate what access you have to weaponry.

The US State allows a remarkably wide and free access and one consequence is repeated massacres of the kind we saw recently in Texas. But it's their country, not ours. If they choose to endure that kind of thing rather than impose some sensible gun-control measures it's their business, not ours. If we don't like it, we just stay away.

Thats a silly comment. I said some extend it as a 'related issue' for a start, as it comes from the 2nd amendment fans.

And your last point is baffling. People cannot comment on the policies and cultures of other countries now as it's not our business? What a waste, theres many good things we can learn from others or bad things to avoid, you cannot do either without commenting on them even though its 'not our business'

boulay said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Someone at the New York Times sits bolt upright.

- Russian media is now warning that food insecurity will lead to cannibalism in Britain

https://twitter.com/phil_tinline/status/1529583045937864706

Will any bookie now open a market on which famous Briton will be first to be scoffed?

Kevin Bacon quickly cancels trip to UK.

As a ham, Kevin Spacey is probably hurriedly consulting lawyers as to whether that's grounds for objecting to extradition...

Has this pile of cringe making twattery been done?

https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1530071739975213056?s=21

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

Distorted and normalised are interesting choices of words.

Being in a bigger single market is not distorted or abnormal to anyone rational, just different.

.

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

Distorted and normalised are interesting choices of words.

Being in a bigger single market is not distorted or abnormal to anyone rational, just different.

Being in a bigger market where we can import or export goods is not distorted, no.

Being in a 'single market' where we can import people who are only able to get £1 per hour at home so will take any job here even at minimum wage suppressing terms and conditions in this country as a result . . . plenty of "rational" people consider that to be an abnormal distortion.

“The person running our country lies, he is reckless and he’s incompetent... our country deserves better and we will not get better until Boris Johnson is gone”

Labour’s @peterkyle calls for the prime minister to resign in the wake of the Sue Grey report. #bbcqt https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1529953642891075592/video/1

turbotubbs said:

pigeon said:

Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTsCuI7VEAMGKEf?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1529819497032347648

Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.

If they are all 82 are they not also dead of Covid? (Average age of death from Covid is 82...)

Well, I'm over 82 and I've just tested negative again, although I've other problems. And I've had Covid.

Of course I'm not, and have never been, a member of the Conservative party, so that might have e conferred some immunity!

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

Cab minister 1: ‘The politics of this is just so bad. It looks like we’re being dictated to by Labour’

Cab minister 2 fears major intervention will soon be forgotten: ‘It won’t be long before the calls will start again, a matter of weeks. We have to make sure that we get credit’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1530081817675673600

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Someone at the New York Times sits bolt upright.

- Russian media is now warning that food insecurity will lead to cannibalism in Britain

https://twitter.com/phil_tinline/status/1529583045937864706

Will any bookie now open a market on which famous Briton will be first to be scoffed?

Eat Big Dog?

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

It's what they did in the Coalition years.....

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.

For a couple of years, for a minority of people, yes. But the problem of that is absolutely dwarfed by the problems that an ever-rising house price and unaffordable homes presents.

The risk of negative equity has to exist or else there will only ever be a one-way ratchet on prices.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

Hard to say. It may be the proportion where the immigrants were most likely to be minded to head home. They would still have strong connections there unlike some of their younger compatriots.

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

Distorted and normalised are interesting choices of words.

Being in a bigger single market is not distorted or abnormal to anyone rational, just different.

That very much depends on your perspective. If you are trying to get a wage increase a labour market that substantially exceeded the "normal" market for the country was severely disadvantageous. Of course if you were an employer it was great, low wages, no need to train up staff, what's not to like?

There are winners and losers in a bigger or smaller single market of course.

Neither is more natural or normal than the other, they are just different arrangements of borders and rules.

Its more natural to trade goods than people, at least since the end of the triangular trade.

Err, people are not traded when they move from Poland to the UK any more than they are when they move from Leeds to Reading. They are just people moving.

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.

Possibly not true. When house prices crashed in Ireland and Northern Ireland back in 2008, by 2010 the banks had created a mortgage that allowed people to move carrying their negative equity with them.

Where there is a problem a significantly big market will find a solution if there is money in it.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.

Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.

It is the opposite - the extreme high house prices, backed by state props, have already created big drops in labour mobility.

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2019/06/Moving-Matters.pdf

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.

Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).

Pensioners are the richest cohort. How on earth is selecting that group a proxy for need?

OldKingCole said:

turbotubbs said:

pigeon said:

Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTsCuI7VEAMGKEf?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1529819497032347648

Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.

If they are all 82 are they not also dead of Covid? (Average age of death from Covid is 82...)

Well, I'm over 82 and I've just tested negative again, although I've other problems. And I've had Covid.

Of course I'm not, and have never been, a member of the Conservative party, so that might have e conferred some immunity!

Long may you reign.

Scott_xP said:

Cabinet discontent over Rishi Sunak tax & spending:

* Kwasi Kwarteng remains opposed to windfall tax

* Rees-Mogg thinks money should be raised elsewhere

* Cab ministers fear Tories won’t get credit & there will be demands for more spending

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ebe3f2e8-dd38-11ec-8de3-573a6521e09e?shareToken=093ce00be2047e05639ccc29c7e883bd

One Tory MP tells me that colleagues slagging off today's bailout package are "ideological nut jobs living in a fantasy world".

Adds: "They should spend less time at the Adam Smith Institute and more time down at Lidl."
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1529880745166118912

FFS, the Tory party is now the party of LIDL shoppers?

We should be the party of Fortnum & Mason shoppers and at worst the party of Waitrose shoppers.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

turbotubbs said:

pigeon said:

Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTsCuI7VEAMGKEf?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1529819497032347648

Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.

If they are all 82 are they not also dead of Covid? (Average age of death from Covid is 82...)

Well, I'm over 82 and I've just tested negative again, although I've other problems. And I've had Covid.

Of course I'm not, and have never been, a member of the Conservative party, so that might have e conferred some immunity!

My wife is 82, was a member of the conservative party, and has not had covid thankfully

To be more precise, you don't know that she hasn't had it asymptomatically, do you? But it's great to hear either way.

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

Cabinet discontent over Rishi Sunak tax & spending:

* Kwasi Kwarteng remains opposed to windfall tax

* Rees-Mogg thinks money should be raised elsewhere

* Cab ministers fear Tories won’t get credit & there will be demands for more spending

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ebe3f2e8-dd38-11ec-8de3-573a6521e09e?shareToken=093ce00be2047e05639ccc29c7e883bd

One Tory MP tells me that colleagues slagging off today's bailout package are "ideological nut jobs living in a fantasy world".

Adds: "They should spend less time at the Adam Smith Institute and more time down at Lidl."
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1529880745166118912

Kwasi looking at the votes on the right of the party for the next leadership election ?

Mogg just the usual meaningless guff.

We could try a windfall tax on his massive hedge fund perhaps?

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Boris might be fortunate the Privileges Committee will investigate his false claims only about partygate. As the Mirror reported a fortnight ago:-

Boris Johnson issued with THIRD warning from stats watchdog over making false claims
Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrongly stated that there were "500,000 more people in paid employment now than there were before the pandemic began"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-issued-third-warning-26938959

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

That being said... the biggest drop in the workforce has been in the 50+ group, which is also probably the section with the fewest immigrants.

If your house consistently earns more for you than your job, then don't be surprised when the 50+ buy more houses and quit their jobs.

A housing market crash would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, as well as provide some intergenerational fairness.

The problem is that it would also negatively impact labour mobility, as people can't move to new areas if they are stuck with negative equity.

I don't think Barty really appreciates the costs of economic disruptions.
Hence his serial enthusiasms for Brexit; a dose of high inflation; a housing price crash... etc.

Occasionally they are both necessary and unavoidable, but constant disruption is bad for most of us.

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Lots have taken early retirement, or moved to part time work in old age. Many foreign citizens returned home during ther pandemic and haven’t returned, especially among the low paid.

I think that the latter factor is the most significant. Our labour market was highly distorted before Covid by an unknown number of people here under freedom of movement. That feature is reduced despite the massive number who sought and obtained leave to remain (that figure alone was significantly higher than we thought the total was).
The result is that our workforce is more normalised in terms of activity levels compared with what we had before.

Though that isn't the entire story. According to the latest figures the percentage economically inactive is up, and stil 1.1% higher than pre-pandemic:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2022

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

turbotubbs said:

pigeon said:

Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTsCuI7VEAMGKEf?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1529819497032347648

Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.

If they are all 82 are they not also dead of Covid? (Average age of death from Covid is 82...)

Well, I'm over 82 and I've just tested negative again, although I've other problems. And I've had Covid.

Of course I'm not, and have never been, a member of the Conservative party, so that might have e conferred some immunity!

My wife is 82, was a member of the conservative party, and has not had covid thankfully

To be more precise, you don't know that she hasn't had it asymptomatically, do you? But it's great to hear either way.

Absolutely no indication either of us have had covid, but then we have had 4 jabs and tend to keep ourselves to ourselves apart from our family

I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:

1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.

2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.

3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.

4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.

I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.

Speaking to me on #r4today @PJTheEconomist of @TheIFS said: “Rishi Sunak is increasing taxes really quite substantially over the next 2-3 years.There’s a big increase in NI & income tax this year & another big increase in income tax next year & a huge increase in corporation tax”

He added: “He ended both his Spring Statement and yesterday’s statement by saying he has a plan to reduce taxes… I think it’s not entirely fronting up to say at the end of two speeches on the trot that he’s cutting taxes when, in fact, he’s raising them.” #r4today

https://twitter.com/FelicityHannah/status/1530088007537242112

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.

Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).

Pensioners are the richest cohort. How on earth is selecting that group a proxy for need?

Within that cohort they are 2 million pensioners living in relative poverty who will be very grateful for the £400 grant, £650 grant and unto £600 winter fuel allowance

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/17/number-of-pensioners-in-relative-poverty-in-uk-up-200000-in-a-year?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Yes, of course there are poor pensioners as there are poor non pensioners.

The extra money on top of the £400 for every household should have gone to those in relative poverty, regardless of age.

Why should millionaire pensioners get money they will never even spend when others will be starving and freezing this winter?

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MrEd said:

Oh dear, looks like Beto has made an ass of himself at the Uvalde shooting press conference. What an absolute kn0b.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/25/texas_mayor_to_beto_orourke_youre_a_sick_son_of_a_bitch_to_make_school_shooting_a_political_issue.html

No @MrEd Beto is not a sick son of a bitch to make a school shooting a political issue, school shootings are a political issue.

The sick sons of bitches are those politicians who are prepared to stand by while school after school is the venue of a mass murder and politicians fail to do their damned job and tackle the issue.

The safety of the public is the number one role of the state to ensure, if politicians can't even take school shootings seriously enough to realise it is a political issue, then what is the point of them?

Whilst the latest massacre of children makes me angry and upset, its long long past being a political issue. Because you get what youy vote for, and someone upthread put it beautifully - people value their guns more than they value their children.

America can't be fixed because America wants to be broken. We may find it appalling but they don't - and its their society. The civilised world should be welcoming to sane Americans who want to flee Gilead, but I can't see how there is any political solution when the people voting are so emotionally backwards.

Except a significant majority favour stricter gun controls.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/25/most-voters-want-congress-to-pass-stricter-gun-laws-poll-finds/amp/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_xP said:

Cabinet discontent over Rishi Sunak tax & spending:

* Kwasi Kwarteng remains opposed to windfall tax

* Rees-Mogg thinks money should be raised elsewhere

* Cab ministers fear Tories won’t get credit & there will be demands for more spending

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ebe3f2e8-dd38-11ec-8de3-573a6521e09e?shareToken=093ce00be2047e05639ccc29c7e883bd

One Tory MP tells me that colleagues slagging off today's bailout package are "ideological nut jobs living in a fantasy world".

Adds: "They should spend less time at the Adam Smith Institute and more time down at Lidl."
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1529880745166118912

FFS, the Tory party is now the party of LIDL shoppers?

We should be the party of Fortnum & Mason shoppers and at worst the party of Waitrose shoppers.

Shocking.

They should be the party of Aldi, not Lidl. Just coming to the end of a couple of cases of a very decent Cru Bourgeois (now sadly out of stock) from them at a very reasonable price indeed.

Just about the whole of the Aldi wine range is worth investigating. You can't buy their £14 champagne any more for love nor, er, money. I still have a case or two of it and it more than stands up to the grands marques.

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.

Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).

Pensioners are the richest cohort. How on earth is selecting that group a proxy for need?

Within that cohort they are 2 million pensioners living in relative poverty who will be very grateful for the £400 grant, £650 grant and unto £600 winter fuel allowance

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/17/number-of-pensioners-in-relative-poverty-in-uk-up-200000-in-a-year?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Yes, of course there are poor pensioners as there are poor non pensioners.

The extra money on top of the £400 for every household should have gone to those in relative poverty, regardless of age.

Why should millionaire pensioners get money they will never even spend when others will be starving and freezing this winter?

Because

(a) saves money on admin: no obvious way to do it otherwise without excluding a target group
(b) in my experience even elderly with some money tend not to spend it on themselves but worry about saving it for their grandchildren, often rather foolishly - and risk hypothermia and so on.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

rcs1000 said:

Foxy said:

Intetesting chart on UK employment from the FT yesterday. We have 500 000 fewer workers than pre-pandemic. The article cites women on the sick, and 50+ professional men as no longer seeking employment.

Not going to deny it, that isn't what I would have expected.

As a matter of interest, what version of unexpected? "This cannot be", or "Oh- that's what's going on"?

From a post-Covid perspective, it kind of makes sense that a cohort near the end of their careers found not working (or not commuting) during lockdowntide rather agreeable, and that their household budget balanced quite nicely thank you, because their mortgage is paid off.

With hindsight, it's not that shocking if some have just kind of wandered away from the workforce, even if they didn't get to have a leaving party.

Would this not in part also be a reflection of how close we are to full employment before and after Covid? If we were close to full employment before Covid hit then it will be much harder to replace those workers who used the intervening period as a suitable point to retire or who realised they could survive without working.

We have areas of the country and sectors of the economy where there are no employees to be hired. And there are areas of the country and sectors of society where unemployment and squalor and want are still in charge.

These structural problem in the economy were getting wider before Covid - lets remove skilled jobs and training and instead focus on Deliveroo is not a sane long-term strategy. We then saw 10 years of societal change in 10 months, with all the potential that technology brings to transform these structural issues.

Instead of having to build a DeLorean factory next to the unemployed, we can create jobs where they can work where they live. We don't have to solve the expensive and difficult things like cheap and available transport or childcare, we just need an internet connection.

Sadly this government is too much in thrall of property developers who are horrified at the impact of this on office prices. So lets try and dismantle hybrid working quick, get those who can back into those lovely offices and make our patrons and owners happy. Huzzah! The economy? They don't care about that.

RochdalePioneers said:

I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:

1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.

2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.

3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.

4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.

I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.

He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult

I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem

Scott_xP said:

Exclusive:

Boris Johnson, his wife & 5 special advisers were issued with questionnaires by Scotland Yard over alleged ‘Abba party’ in his flat on night Dominic Cummings left No 10

None of them were fined

PM claimed he was working on building new team

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/490aff36-dcdd-11ec-8de3-573a6521e09e?shareToken=825b730c122fea19153b0b77ed14b08c

Knowing the words to The Winner Takes It All is required for the job.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I think yesterday played very very well for Sunak:

1. The timing was hilarious. Naomi Long skewered it on QT and the Tory minister ended up rowing with the audience when they laughed at his spin lines. Timing isn't set by the Chancellor. Makes Bonzo and the shills who defend the indefensible look like even bigger idiots.

2. The U-turn is hilarious. Sunak isn't the minister who has been saying no in increasingly shrill terms, he left the door open. Whipping Tory MPs to vote against this last week not his doing.

3. This is a wallet vs theory issue. The Redwood division of the Tories hates this, but Sunak simply points to the voters those MPs need to get re-elected. Chucking cash at a massive problem was the only option and its something he is very good at.

4. Need to reverse the "he's a toff, he doesn't know how we think" attack of a month ago? Throw cash at it.

I still think Sunak is the Tories best asset. And unlike so many of the ministers in the clown car he isn't a mouth-foaming zealot. He may not know how a chip and pin machine works but he does know that when people are in the shit they need a ladder - and he keeps producing ladders. As opposed to the "blame the poor, aren't they stupid" mentality of so many of today's Tory tits.

He is certainly the most articulate of the cabinet but some will say that is not difficult

I have commented a few times recently that he may be a good bet for next PM as unlikely as it may seem

Rishi has been backed overnight to be next PM and next party leader, as posted earlier.

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

A good set of front pages for the Chancellor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405

Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.

He is value at those odds. The support package is about right (bar the £300 extra to even millionaire pensioners, based on age - really voting intention - rather than need) as is the windfall tax. When something does actually need to be done Sunak is reasonable at doing it. Just a shame the Tory party can't get ahead of things like this but rather spends six months criticising such ideas as radical communism, then flip flops to they are brilliant.

That £300 isn’t really voter intent - I can see the argument that goes we need to identify need - but that costs money and time best so we will use Aggie as a proxy for that identification.

Then again I’ve seen how much it costs to identify needy people especially when HMRC still won’t combine their systems with DWP (for multiple reasons, some policy some just security).

Pensioners are the richest cohort. How on earth is selecting that group a proxy for need?

Within that cohort they are 2 million pensioners living in relative poverty who will be very grateful for the £400 grant, £650 grant and unto £600 winter fuel allowance

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/17/number-of-pensioners-in-relative-poverty-in-uk-up-200000-in-a-year?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Yes, of course there are poor pensioners as there are poor non pensioners.

The extra money on top of the £400 for every household should have gone to those in relative poverty, regardless of age.

Why should millionaire pensioners get money they will never even spend when others will be starving and freezing this winter?

Because

(a) saves money on admin: no obvious way to do it otherwise without excluding a target group
(b) in my experience even elderly with some money tend not to spend it on themselves but worry about saving it for their grandchildren, often rather foolishly - and risk hypothermia and so on.

Just not true.

Simply re-allocate the £300 for voting Tory to the 8 million poorest households on means tested benefits who are already identified in the scheme or restore the £20 UC uplift.

And as for the emotional bit there are also parents starving themselves to illness so they can provide some food for their kids.

Scott_xP said:

Leaving the Single Market has been a disaster for investment and economic growth.

Eventually a government that prioritises the economy needs to correct this. https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1530084859284279297/photo/1

Sick man of Europe, again.