2 weeks to go till the by-elections and more want BoJo OUT – politicalbetting.com

Suuunak!

Sandpit said:

Jeremy C***, as the BBC and Sky quite obviously call him in the newsroom.

I suspect that is what Boris Johnson and his 2 or 3 loyal followers call him too!

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
·
1h
the theme of the speech was please stfu about partygate now pls

rottenborough said:

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
·
1h
the theme of the speech was please stfu about partygate now pls

I noticed Sky were not invited to a question, but then Sam Coates hardly covered himself in glory outside number 10

Sounds like another successful outing from Peppa Pig:

Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
So Boris' plan for responding to the economic challenge of high inflation is to have govt-forced higher mortgage lending by banks plus govt-subsidised mortgages, boosting the money supply & thus driving inflation up more.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1534886438629679106

Nigelb said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”

Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?

How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?

That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.

PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.

Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.

BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode

Do not mention early GE please

The issue with this is fewer and fewer people have been given any reason to believe him.
He's back in his comfort zone. Big promises, precious little detail.

The real issue is that it demonstrates an incapacity to effectively govern.
He has no other mode than campaigning mode.

“ no other mode than campaigning mode.”

So we are in agreement, it’s right to be on top internal threats and work to maximise GE vote, for Boris to be in full on electioneering mode all the way up to that General Election? And we will problem see the best of him now.

Farooq said down thread the glow from the uplands is they are on fire - that may be over the top, but Boris speech here was a whole lot more sunlit uplands to focus on. Perhaps instead of previous ones, as he not only criticised 13 years of Tory government in the guise of blaming labour, no money left, debt, high taxes, energy policy years behind, but also in this speech seemed to run against his manifesto of 2019.

The emphasis on reigning in spending, in favour of tax cuts and big cuts in government, is very much electioneering - it’s maybe NOT the right thing economically to do in the next two years - it’s like how Tory’s shot labours fox in 1992, kicking what honestly needed to be done till after the win? It’s also not sounding like his 2019 pitch anymore?

Boris emphasis on higher interest rates suggests this too? So how independent is the Bank of England if Boris wants those rates up?

Don’t mention early one? This Was not wait till the last moment speech, it’s a let’s be ready for that election speech. If Labour lose both leader and Deputy can you rule out a “its their own stonking fault if they don’t have a proper PM to offer you in this election” election?

Carnyx said:

rottenborough said:

Sounds like another successful outing from Peppa Pig:

Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
So Boris' plan for responding to the economic challenge of high inflation is to have govt-forced higher mortgage lending by banks plus govt-subsidised mortgages, boosting the money supply & thus driving inflation up more.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1534886438629679106

But it maintains and increases the unearned wealth of Tory-voting pensioners and their arguably undertaxed beneficiaries in their wills.

Ah, now it all makes sense.

rottenborough said:

Sounds like another successful outing from Peppa Pig:

Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
So Boris' plan for responding to the economic challenge of high inflation is to have govt-forced higher mortgage lending by banks plus govt-subsidised mortgages, boosting the money supply & thus driving inflation up more.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1534886438629679106

People will make their voting decisions on the number 1 issue which is inflation and it is entirely apparent that the Government do not understand how big the problem is or have any desire to try to address it 😡

Pulpstar said:

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

Theyll need to be higher than 12% to make good progress (above 20 or so seats), and it willl require no swingback.
A big unknown is if the Tories/Boris are at the nadir wrt Partygate, or is more attrition to come?

Pulpstar said:

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

We can hope. Plus add several in Surrey as a bonus.

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

I expect a landslide in both seats against Boris, but I do not see an immediate coup but it is coming hopefully in time for conference

I am Conservative but would vote Yorkshire Party if I was in Wakefield 👍

As all good PBs should do regardless of party

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
·
1h
the theme of the speech was please stfu about partygate now pls

Yet the media continue to wonder why they are held in such disregard by the public.

Aha! All Starmer’s fault Boris was left standing yesterday. All media fault he’s still upright after today 😂

Come on on then, what would you actually have done? Over two hundred of his own MPs just gave him a positive endorsement despite party gate, meaning no more confidence vote anytime soon, his cabinet and government stood by him, despite partygate, you can forget courtroom style conventions, he doesn’t have to answer a question, he doesn’t have to tell any truth, and he controls the policy board.

What you saying the media done wrong today?

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Jeremy C***, as the BBC and Sky quite obviously call him in the newsroom.

I suspect that is what Boris Johnson and his 2 or 3 loyal followers call him too!

Looks as if they have done more than name calling. !!!

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534876433021079555?t=WVfCMsorAWsSObPRWLs54g&s=19

The contrast with the Isle of Wight is interesting. A coincidence? Is this the warning for rebels at the next leadership challenge?

There probably isn't any oil in SW Surrey, but they are going to put an oil well there anyway because, well it is Jeremy Hunt's seat.

Pulpstar said:

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

I don't think that's true: they stand an excellent chance in St Ives (assuming Andrew George runs again), and North Cornwall is possible (if a stretch). I guess they stand a chance in North Devon too.

But the South West is otherwise fairly barren territory for the libdems.

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

MoonRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
·
1h
the theme of the speech was please stfu about partygate now pls

Yet the media continue to wonder why they are held in such disregard by the public.

Aha! All Starmer’s fault Boris was left standing yesterday. All media fault he’s still upright after today 😂

Come on on then, what would you actually have done? Over two hundred of his own MPs just gave him a positive endorsement despite party gate, meaning no more confidence vote anytime soon, his cabinet and government stood by him, despite partygate, you can forget courtroom style conventions, he doesn’t have to answer a question, he doesn’t have to tell any truth, and he controls the policy board.

What you saying the media done wrong today?

I’m saying that the media are preferring to tweet sarcastic quips, rather than address the substance of what the PM has been talking about.

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

fpt

Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.

Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.

1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.

2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.

From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?

(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).

The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.

That's the case for 2022 election.

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

The UK cut fuel duty rates by 5p. Ireland cut them by 20c (petrol) and 15c (diesel). So if you're right inflation will be significantly lower in Ireland than the UK.

This hasn't happened. The inflation is due to a supply shock. You can't cut inflation created by a supply shock by providing a subsidy - you only make it worse.

There are three possible responses that make sense: increase supply, reduce demand (by increasing efficiency), reduce demand (by providing an alternative).

The middle one of those is the quickest to implement. The last is what we're planning to do due to global warming anyway. So we should get on with it.

algarkirk said:

fpt

Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.

Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.

1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.

2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.

From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?

(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).

The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.

That's the case for 2022 election.

(2) - perhap, but he can't hold an election now before the summer break (due to the 25 working day requirement).

So it's Autumn, specifically after conference season..... things will be much worse by then. Colder weather coming, nights drawing in, petrol at £2 per litre; diesel at £2.15.
Nawh. He's toast if he tries that.

I know we love to speculate on it, but there really is no need or desire to hold an election. Even if he would win a majority, he's still looking at 30 seat losses. He won't really want that......

Thursday’s @EveningStandard #cartoon https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1534912159368593410/photo/1

TheValiant said:

Well, there are four possible outcomes two weeks today.

1. Con hold both.
2. Con lose both.
3. & 4. are hold one and not the other (and vice versa).

In simple terms, and trying not to get my hopes up too much(!):

Con hold both - 15% chance - I can't see it, but clearly it'd put wind back into Johnson's sails, upset the rebels and allow Johnson's team to try and move on from the leadership crisis into other matters. Not my hoped for outcome, but if he manages this then I'd say he's definitely safe for a good year or more, even with a bad Standards committee report.

Con lose Wakefield and hold Tiverton - 50% chance
I wonder if this is too high a chance, but lets run with it. Again, I think Johnson will spin it as 'we held on, and we were never going to hold Wakefield anyway... mid term... marginal... blah blah blah.....' and just ignore the issue completely.

Con hold Wakefield and lose Tiverton - 5% chance
Is this on anyone's radar?
It'd probably indicate more for the poor state of the Labour party and Starmer than Johnson if the Lib Dems do the near impossible whilst Labour can't clear a simple hurdle.

Con lose both - 30% chance
What I'd like to see, but what does it really get us? Johnson won't resign and the Con rebels are still 11 months and 1 week away from a reload!
Unless the cabinet turn against him (no chance, they all owe their position to him anyway) I don't see what it changes (except Johnson's majority by 4) in the short term.

Not really with you here:

Con hold both: Almost zero.
Con lose Wakefield, hold T and H: 25% chance
Con hold Wakefield, lose T and H: Almost zero
Con lose both: 75% chance.

I have a small bet on Tories lose Wakefield and hold T and H. Not holding my breath.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Jeremy C***, as the BBC and Sky quite obviously call him in the newsroom.

I suspect that is what Boris Johnson and his 2 or 3 loyal followers call him too!

Looks as if they have done more than name calling. !!!

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534876433021079555?t=WVfCMsorAWsSObPRWLs54g&s=19

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Jeremy C***, as the BBC and Sky quite obviously call him in the newsroom.

I suspect that is what Boris Johnson and his 2 or 3 loyal followers call him too!

Looks as if they have done more than name calling. !!!

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534876433021079555?t=WVfCMsorAWsSObPRWLs54g&s=19

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Jeremy C***, as the BBC and Sky quite obviously call him in the newsroom.

I suspect that is what Boris Johnson and his 2 or 3 loyal followers call him too!

Looks as if they have done more than name calling. !!!

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534876433021079555?t=WVfCMsorAWsSObPRWLs54g&s=19

Johnson is a vindictive b******. Dick him about at ones peril.

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

The UK cut fuel duty rates by 5p. Ireland cut them by 20c (petrol) and 15c (diesel). So if you're right inflation will be significantly lower in Ireland than the UK.

This hasn't happened. The inflation is due to a supply shock. You can't cut inflation created by a supply shock by providing a subsidy - you only make it worse.

There are three possible responses that make sense: increase supply, reduce demand (by increasing efficiency), reduce demand (by providing an alternative).

The middle one of those is the quickest to implement. The last is what we're planning to do due to global warming anyway. So we should get on with it.

It's at least conceivable that Johnson would try such a stunt a few weeks ahead of an election.
The interesting question is whether his party could or would stop him calling an election.

TheValiant said:

algarkirk said:

fpt

Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.

Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.

1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.

2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.

From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?

(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).

The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.

That's the case for 2022 election.

(2) - perhap, but he can't hold an election now before the summer break (due to the 25 working day requirement).

So it's Autumn, specifically after conference season..... things will be much worse by then. Colder weather coming, nights drawing in, petrol at £2 per litre; diesel at £2.15.
Nawh. He's toast if he tries that.

I know we love to speculate on it, but there really is no need or desire to hold an election. Even if he would win a majority, he's still looking at 30 seat losses. He won't really want that......

I suspect you've misunderstood this - the election timetable is set around normal working days (i.e. excluding Sat, Sun and BHs) rather than Commons sitting days. He could call an election for mid-July now.

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.

The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.

Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.

The danger is it looks like hes hosing out policies in desparation. He needs to pre announce the government are 'looking at oil and will formulate a specific plan' a week or 2 out to scotch the 'fag packet' critics

And when i say 'the danger' frankly, he is.

That danger is to the politically-obsessed, in Westminster and on here.

From the rest of the country, there will be massive thanks.

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1534902481997553664

They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army.
The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Apparently they have no death penalty in Russia. This is therefore not Russia approved

General Staff UA stresses that all foreigners and stateless persons who joined the service and fight in Ukraine have signed a contract with UA Armed Forces and are subjects to international legal status of combatants and should be treated as prisoners of war in case of captivity
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1534906217688088577

Brimstones in use at the front.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1534904095319916545

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.

The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.

Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.

The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.

People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.

The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".

CorrectHorseBattery said:

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

I know it's a by-election, but the Lib Dems might be able to take back every SW seat they had in 1997 with change if Boris tries to lead the Tories into another GE.

I expect a landslide in both seats against Boris, but I do not see an immediate coup but it is coming hopefully in time for conference

I am Conservative but would vote Yorkshire Party if I was in Wakefield 👍

Do you remember how confident you were about the Tories holding Wandsworth?

We've all pissed a lot of water under the bridge since then...

Applicant said:

TheValiant said:

algarkirk said:

fpt

Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.

Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.

1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.

2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.

From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?

(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).

The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.

That's the case for 2022 election.

(2) - perhap, but he can't hold an election now before the summer break (due to the 25 working day requirement).

So it's Autumn, specifically after conference season..... things will be much worse by then. Colder weather coming, nights drawing in, petrol at £2 per litre; diesel at £2.15.
Nawh. He's toast if he tries that.

I know we love to speculate on it, but there really is no need or desire to hold an election. Even if he would win a majority, he's still looking at 30 seat losses. He won't really want that......

I suspect you've misunderstood this - the election timetable is set around normal working days (i.e. excluding Sat, Sun and BHs) rather than Commons sitting days. He could call an election for mid-July now.

I suspect I haven't.
No way is he calling an election now for mid-July.

I was wrong three years ago when I said you couldn't have a December election, but we faced a massive political crisis and it HAD to be done in the end.
We now face an economic crisis but not a political one.
No one, but no one, wants an election either Thursday 14th July or Thursday 21st. The latter date is after the kids have broke up, and whilst the 14th probably isn't there will be too many people THINKING about the holidays to want to get excited by a GE. They'll hammer Johnson if he tries.

Remember, Brenda from Bristol is what the majority of people think. WE'RE the weirdos!

Roger said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1534902481997553664

They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army.
The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Apparently they have no death penalty in Russia. This is therefore not Russia approved

Apparently the Russian state has been responsible for a lot of death recently, so that might not be a big constraint.

kyf_100 said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.

The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.

Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.

The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about. Hard not to, when it's going up almost daily.

People have moved on from partygate. What they see is a government that apparently doesn't have any answers to the cost of living crisis.

The only light for the government is that such observations among my friends are usually followed up by "the other lot don't have a clue what to do, either".

Of course it is. Petrol is the one thing everyone* knows the price of, every day. Because they go past 20’ high billboards with the price written in 12” high letters. By law.

*everyone outside central London anyway.

kyf_100 said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.

The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.

Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.

The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about.

People have moved on from partygate.

No they haven't.

It's both and more.

Roger said:

As Peter Jenkins once said 'He's clinging to office with a tenacity that would make a leech blush'

And the sad thing is it's for no positive reason. No vision, no competence, no nothing.

wooliedyed said:

TheValiant said:

Well, there are four possible outcomes two weeks today.

1. Con hold both.
2. Con lose both.
3. & 4. are hold one and not the other (and vice versa).

In simple terms, and trying not to get my hopes up too much(!):

Con hold both - 15% chance - I can't see it, but clearly it'd put wind back into Johnson's sails, upset the rebels and allow Johnson's team to try and move on from the leadership crisis into other matters. Not my hoped for outcome, but if he manages this then I'd say he's definitely safe for a good year or more, even with a bad Standards committee report.

Con lose Wakefield and hold Tiverton - 50% chance
I wonder if this is too high a chance, but lets run with it. Again, I think Johnson will spin it as 'we held on, and we were never going to hold Wakefield anyway... mid term... marginal... blah blah blah.....' and just ignore the issue completely.

Con hold Wakefield and lose Tiverton - 5% chance
Is this on anyone's radar?
It'd probably indicate more for the poor state of the Labour party and Starmer than Johnson if the Lib Dems do the near impossible whilst Labour can't clear a simple hurdle.

Con lose both - 30% chance
What I'd like to see, but what does it really get us? Johnson won't resign and the Con rebels are still 11 months and 1 week away from a reload!
Unless the cabinet turn against him (no chance, they all owe their position to him anyway) I don't see what it changes (except Johnson's majority by 4) in the short term.

I think you're overestimating their chances in Tiverton personally, no better than a 20% chance of a hold imo

They are going to be crushed in both by-elections. Not even close.

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cut VAT on fuel to 0%. Labour should back it

Doesn't solve any issues for the haulage industry as they can claim VAT back.

You really need to reduce fuel duty and given that (as @Sandpit points out) fuel duty needs to be replaced anyway as we switch to electric it is something that could be done.

Indeed, fuel duty has served its purpose, the switch to electric is underway and only going to continue. Time to axe it now, if fuel comes back down, we can start taxing it again. 👍

Fuel would still be taxed if duty is abolished, it will simply be taxed with VAT like any other product.

Heathener said:

kyf_100 said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

wooliedyed said:

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. A huge amount of the inflation is coming from fuel prices. It costs £2bn a month to scrap fuel duty, 52p a litre, and it can be done overnight.

A huge amount of the cost comes back, by reducing inflationary pressure everywhere in the economy. It still makes petrol £1.20 or £1.30, which is where it was only a few months ago - but most importantly, it tells the country that the government is listening to them about the cost of living.

But theyll wait till they are sub 30 and its been proposed by Reeves.

The problem is that all the policymakers live in central London, and don’t care themselves about the cost of petrol on a daily basis.

They really should care about it though, because the cost of transport fuels feed back into absolutely everything else.

Yes, get petrol down to 'normal' and it will dwarf partygate in the polls. The only Tory leads from 95 to 2001 were the fuel protests. Petrol is the ballgame.

It’s the sort of policy that’s worth a 10-point swing in the polls in a week. Tell the country that you understand there’s a problem, that it’s a temporary problem, and that here is a bunch of relief while that problem persists.

The government has to wean itself off fuel duty anyway, may as well do it now when it’s politically prudent and massively popular. They can always bring it back as the oil price falls.

Bonus points if the green-minded Labour party oppose the cut.

The pain at the pump is all any of my friends outside of London talk about.

People have moved on from partygate.

No they haven't.

It's both and more.

Obviously we don't have the same circle of friends! But nobody I talk to talks about party gate any more.

Thought experiment.

What do you think is more likely to give the Conservatives a greater bump in the polls?

Boris saying "Sorry I got Partygate wrong" and resigning, or Boris announcing Sandpit's suggestion of an immediate suspension of fuel duty?

LostPassword said:

If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.

It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.

For most people, petrol/diesel is price inelastic.

LostPassword said:

If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.

It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.

All medium-term considerations. There needs to be the short-term consideration that millions of people can’t afford to both drive to work and feed their kids. And the high fuel price is making the food more expensive.

Price electicity of demand for petrol is something like 0.2. Only @Dura_Ace on this forum uses it discretionarily.

LostPassword said:

If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.

It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.

What's the electric car market like at the moment? Anecdotally I know of someone who ordered a VW electric in Autumn last year who has not had it delivered yet. If there's a supply-side restriction, fuel price won't matter as much.

Besides, electric cars cost so much nowadays that I doubt fuel costs are really much of an incentive. Bragging rights probably count for much more.

(Speaking of which, we might need to change our 10-year old VW Passat soon. I haven't really looked into it, but would consider electric, but prefer to buy second-hand which might be a problem...)

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1534902481997553664

They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army.
The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.

I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?

The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die


And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1534902481997553664

They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army.
The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.

I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?

The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die

And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”

The reason for the Geneva Convention, is to be able to put the likes of Putin on trial afterwards.

LostPassword said:

Applicant said:

LostPassword said:

If you cut fuel duty you reduce the incentive for people to switch to electric cars and you support a higher level of demand for fuel - this will lead to an increase in the price of fuel until a higher price forces demand down again to bring demand and supply into balance.

It's pissing into the wind of a supply shock.

For most people, petrol/diesel is price inelastic.

It's always at the margins that demand and supply come into balance. When you say that most people are price inelastic this only means that the price swings required to bring demand and supply into balance are greater. It doesn't mean that isn't what is happening.

The supply shock is global, its not coming back into balance by UK action alone though.

We should not subsidise fuel, but there's no need to tax it so highly.

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

2 Britons, 1 Moroccan sentenced to death by pro-Russian court in so called Donetsk People's Republic on Thursday. The men are accused of being "mercenaries" for Ukraine. British citizens Aiden Aslin, Shaun Pinner & Moroccan Brahim Saadoune were captured in Mariupol.

https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1534902481997553664

They are legally enlisted with Ukraine's army.
The trial and sentences are a breach of the Geneva Convention.

I’ve always thought the Geneva Convention is a load of old pants, tho. Rules of war. Really? War is about merciless killing and conquest. How can you have rules? The so-called rules are also hypocritical and ridiculous: it’s OK to bomb cities and kill thousands of civilians but’s NOT OK to shoot a few POWs? Who makes up this shit? Where do nukes fit in? Hiroshima? Was that OK?

The only rule is: don’t get caught, because you might die

And this is not to exonerate Putin. An unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country is horrible, vile, barbaric. It is immoral and dangerous and has to be opposed. But my abhorrence has nothing to do with “rules of war”

The reason for the Geneva Convention, is to be able to put the likes of Putin on trial afterwards.

And who is going to arrest him? The only way you can hope to put Putin on trial is to defeat him.