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

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

@guyverhofstadt
Europe is not fit for the world of tomorrow.

Only a European Union without veto’s can survive !

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1534804165326737408

Why does he have the apostrophe in there? How can I take someone seriously who doesn't know how apostrophes work?

Maybe he was a greengrocer in a past incarnation.

wooliedyed said:

biggles said:

wooliedyed said:

Westminster Voting Intention (8-9 June):

Labour 40% (+2)
Conservative 32% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 5% (+2)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 2% (-1)

Changes +/- 5 June

https://t.co/rtfGoXeO6b https://t.co/Vayt1WEeyB

Small movement post dog rescue

Is Reform being prompted for? Fascinating if so, and people remember they exist. In any case, I doubt they’ll stand in anything like all constituencies next time.

Not sure tbh, but R and W pretty solidly in the 32 to 34 vs 38 to 40 range now with the odd outlier.
The background levels seem pretty set, could do with seeing a comres to see if that 11 lead was a one off
Get the sense there is a slight but not dramatic so far drift down for tories

Despite the fact that they're destructive and fundamentally useless, the current Government probably has a bedrock of support available in an actual election (regardless of what random numbers spew out of opinion polls) of about a third of the electorate. They only start to dip below that if elderly homeowners and their expectant heirs begin to desert in numbers. That's possible if the performance of the NHS keeps getting relentlessly worse (or if the Government does something politically suicidal, like hiking property and/or inheritance taxes,) but there's not much sign of that yet.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment

The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases

You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers

No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.

That's simply not true.

The difference between the very rich and most people is that (for the ultra rich) a 50% reduction in the value of their portfolios affects their life not one jot. They have become absolutely a lot poorer, but the impact on their lives will be almost non-existent.

Anabobazina said:

northern_monkey said:

An uncharacteristically subdued Nick Ferrari here. Like a school boy getting a bollocking for nicking some sweets.


https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1534808388319727616?s=21&t=t2NrkFtz1S7sdIZpLY0G2w

Yes, I don't think Bozza was initially clear that levelling up is about enhancing London's prospects and those of Northern Ireland – two key units of the union that have been maligned for too long. More power to his elbow.

iirc NI voted Remain. So it is rather democratic that it has at least ended up still in the SM.

rottenborough said:

Anabobazina said:

northern_monkey said:

An uncharacteristically subdued Nick Ferrari here. Like a school boy getting a bollocking for nicking some sweets.


https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1534808388319727616?s=21&t=t2NrkFtz1S7sdIZpLY0G2w

Yes, I don't think Bozza was initially clear that levelling up is about enhancing London's prospects and those of Northern Ireland – two key units of the union that have been maligned for too long. More power to his elbow.

iirc NI voted Remain. So it is rather democratic that it has at least ended up still in the SM.

Hard on the Scots, though, who voted markedly more to remain.

Roger said:

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

Probably Simon Jenkins.
Simon or Simeon was St Peter's original name, so an understandable confusion for a follower of The Book.

biggles 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

“As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say, Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong”.

Magnificent as the sentiment is, sadly that wasn't even really true when Palmerston said it - the Don Pacifico affair was us picking on a country where we knew we were the more powerful party by a long way. Had America been the opposing party I suspect that the watchful eye of England would have looked the other way.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

MarqueeMark said:

Anabobazina said:

wooliedyed said:

Westminster Voting Intention (8-9 June):

Labour 40% (+2)
Conservative 32% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 5% (+2)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 2% (-1)

Changes +/- 5 June

https://t.co/rtfGoXeO6b https://t.co/Vayt1WEeyB

Small movement post dog rescue

All midterm nonsense, yet heading towards the magical 10pt gap that @HYUFD considers the trigger for Boriscide.

Can't come soon enough.

No point in a deeply unpopular leader announcing popular policies. They'll just bank the popular stuff, say thanks and go vote for the other guy who isn't a liar. Even one as despairingly dull as Starmer.

An eight point lead with a "despairingly dull" leader isn't too shoddy, is it? Just imagine what the lead could be if either a) folk decided that Starmer wasn't so dull after all, or b) Starmer were replaced by somebody interesting.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Farooq said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

wooliedyed said:

Westminster Voting Intention (8-9 June):

Labour 40% (+2)
Conservative 32% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 5% (+2)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 2% (-1)

Changes +/- 5 June

https://t.co/rtfGoXeO6b https://t.co/Vayt1WEeyB

Small movement post dog rescue

BJO why won't Corbyn come back?????

Labour/Green back up to 45%. Ominous for Boris.

1997 coalition re-built.

If we get tactical voting in 2024 like 1997, I don't know how we don't get a large Labour majority

Because Scotland.
A majority, let alone a large one, isn't easy to achieve.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

I really do hope that SKS and labour decide that now is the time to introduce a wealth tax. Ideally they will also bin council tax at the same time but something does need to be done.

It should certainly implement a shift away from taxation of earned incomes and toward the taxation of assets. Higher taxes on capital gains (including on the sale of primary residences,) sumptuary taxation of second homes and a large expansion in the levying of death duties are also desirable.

Just to throw an extra idea out there, I would crack down on companies that pay out fat dividends to shareholders whilst imposing real terms pay cuts on their employees. Wage settlements below the rate of inflation should mean no goodies for the owners.

Anyone who goes near a tax on the sale of private property will not see power

The other problem of attacking shares and dividends is they make up most peoples pension portfolio which 8f attacked will be equally unpopular

There is a reason this has not been touched before though a moderation in IHT allowances and a wealth tax time has come

Sadly you're probably right about capital gains on the sales of primary residences, but the thorough soaking of second home owners should be doable. People who own holiday homes are simply taking primary residences away from other people and, through the constriction of supply, making their contribution to the stoking of runaway house price inflation, which is the great evil that bedevils our economy. Why bother to invest in anything other than piles of fundamentally unproductive bricks when they represent a huge guaranteed return for zero risk?

Most people will benefit more from having their wages boosted than they will from having their pension pots boosted. If their wages are shite then they can't afford luxuries like pension contributions to begin with. And there seems nothing illogical in the basic concept that a private enterprise that is genuinely too skint to properly compensate its staff must also, by extension, be too skint to offer returns to its investors. Businesses that inflict poverty pay whilst distributing fat dividends are bleeding their employees white so that the owners can get richer.

IHT is constructed so it's possible, under certain circumstances, to transmit a fortune of a million pounds without paying a penny. We don't need a minor correction of the allowances, we need a complete overhaul. If the bulk of estates (save where everything was being left to a surviving spouse) were subject to at least some level of IHT, then the Treasury could raise a fortune.

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Cookie said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.

Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though.
There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine.
Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.

Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.

That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.

I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.

To be fair my experience has generally been that it is always cheaper to travel long distances by train than by car - so long as you are traveling alone. As soon as you start travelling as a couple or a family those savings quickly disappear and it becomes very expensive. The trouble is that public transport as a whole, including trains, is really not very convenient for most people outside of cities.

If I lived in a city I would be delighted to use public transport or walk - as I do whenever I visit London. But once you get away from the cities it is difficult at best and impossible in many places.

It would be nice to see a lot of the proposals to reopen lines given more support and fast tracked. Reverse some of the idiocy of Beeching.

I do hope your reference to fast tracking the reopening of railway lines was deliberate.

It's the Treasury that keep missing the point.

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

dixiedean said:

dixiedean said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Farooq said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

wooliedyed said:

Westminster Voting Intention (8-9 June):

Labour 40% (+2)
Conservative 32% (-2)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 5% (+2)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 2% (-1)

Changes +/- 5 June

https://t.co/rtfGoXeO6b https://t.co/Vayt1WEeyB

Small movement post dog rescue

BJO why won't Corbyn come back?????

Labour/Green back up to 45%. Ominous for Boris.

1997 coalition re-built.

If we get tactical voting in 2024 like 1997, I don't know how we don't get a large Labour majority

Because Scotland.
A majority, let alone a large one, isn't easy to achieve.

That 40-32 is still just shy of one on UNS, for example.

In 1997 Major's Tories also only got 30%, the 32% Johnson's Tories are on even with RedfieldWilton today is the same as Howard's Tories got in 2005 not Major's Tories in '97.

In 2005 New Labour also still won most Scottish seats unlike today

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Applicant said:

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

What was Johnson approval at GE19 and what was Corbyn's

December 2019 range:

Boris 33-45
Corbyn 21-28

Slightly complicated because two different questions are asked.

Applicant said:

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

So politicians are all as bad as each other?

Applicant said:

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

So swap Sunak for Johnson and Starmer still leads by exactly the same margin of approval anyway

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Cookie said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.

Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though.
There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine.
Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.

Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.

That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.

I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.

To be fair my experience has generally been that it is always cheaper to travel long distances by train than by car - so long as you are traveling alone. As soon as you start travelling as a couple or a family those savings quickly disappear and it becomes very expensive. The trouble is that public transport as a whole, including trains, is really not very convenient for most people outside of cities.

If I lived in a city I would be delighted to use public transport or walk - as I do whenever I visit London. But once you get away from the cities it is difficult at best and impossible in many places.

It would be nice to see a lot of the proposals to reopen lines given more support and fast tracked. Reverse some of the idiocy of Beeching.

This is one of those areas where it is cheaper to be comfortably off than to be poor.

A comfortably off person knows that the all in cost to driving is not just the price of the fuel, but also the depreciation, maintenance, etc. They know that driving 300 miles to Newcastle might actually cost them £150 by car, once everything is included.

But for someone with more limited means, they might think: 10 gallons at £6.50, well the *cash* cost of driving is lower.

dixiedean said:

Andrew MacDonald from Politico going through the ludicrously huge numbers of "resets" of this Johnson administration on PM.
Had forgotten about almost all of them.

About once a month.
Who now remembers the Queen’s speech?

Does anyone still think Boris will increase his majority at the next election?

Applicant said:

Northern_Al said:

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Cookie said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cut VAT on fuel to 0%, cut fuel duty for a year. Labour should back it.

Doesn't really fit with the zero carbon agenda though.
There is a significant interest which is quite pleased with high fuel prices because it pushes people away from the internal combustion engine.
Not saying I back this approach (though I have some nuanced sympathy for it) - but it doesn't fit in with Labour's general approach to transport and the environment.

Yes. I've definitely been driving less since the fuel prices rose. Biking more and catching the bus in marginal situations rather than jumping in the car. Enjoying it. Cars are more hassle than they are worth round here much of the time, trying to park etc. Just force of habit pushes me into it normally.

That can't be true. I've been assured that demand for fuel is price inelastic.

I guess some people will drive almost regardless of the cost, but it definitely makes you think more about it. One of the interesting changes is that some long distance journeys are now competitive by train, if you are travelling alone. Previously, cars were almost always significantly cheaper.

To be fair my experience has generally been that it is always cheaper to travel long distances by train than by car - so long as you are traveling alone. As soon as you start travelling as a couple or a family those savings quickly disappear and it becomes very expensive. The trouble is that public transport as a whole, including trains, is really not very convenient for most people outside of cities.

If I lived in a city I would be delighted to use public transport or walk - as I do whenever I visit London. But once you get away from the cities it is difficult at best and impossible in many places.

It would be nice to see a lot of the proposals to reopen lines given more support and fast tracked. Reverse some of the idiocy of Beeching.

I do hope your reference to fast tracking the reopening of railway lines was deliberate.

It's the Treasury that keep missing the point.

You signalled that pun in advance, methinks.

If the puns are starting, it'll be hard to keep the discussion on track.

We don't have a single thread on track.

Sandpit said:

Applicant said:

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

So politicians are all as bad as each other?

Alternatively, they're as about good as each other, but Johnson is also seen as a lot more bad.

pigeon said:

If their wages are shite then they can't afford luxuries like pension contributions to begin with.

If we as a society consider pensions 'luxuries' small wonder we're in such a mess.

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

Applicant said:

Applicant said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

All Net Approval Ratings
(8-9 June):

Boris Johnson: -25% (-2)
Keir Starmer: -3% (+1)
Rishi Sunak: -12% (–)

Changes +/- 5 June

That is a terrible set of numbers for BoJo and good for Starmer who remains neutral

What are the actual approval numbers?

Buried in the data tables:

Boris 27
SKS 29
Sunak 27

So politicians are all as bad as each other?

Alternatively, they're as about good as each other, but Johnson is also seen as a lot more bad.

That would be a fair characterisation. But it's much easier to vote for good vs bad than it is to vote for indifferent vs bad.

Talking of masks, today I was cycling in a particularly busy bit of London (Ludgate Circus) and as the lights turned from red to green for one direction this woman ran out, narrowly avoiding the oncoming rush of taxis, buses, cycle couriers, Boris bikers (bonjour and she wouldn't have had any trouble avoiding those) and uber drivers.

She made it to the other side of the road but only just, doing that running not running thing that people do when they are caught out.

And she was wearing a facemask.

I suppose people pick and choose the risks they want to take.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

I really do hope that SKS and labour decide that now is the time to introduce a wealth tax. Ideally they will also bin council tax at the same time but something does need to be done.

It should certainly implement a shift away from taxation of earned incomes and toward the taxation of assets. Higher taxes on capital gains (including on the sale of primary residences,) sumptuary taxation of second homes and a large expansion in the levying of death duties are also desirable.

Just to throw an extra idea out there, I would crack down on companies that pay out fat dividends to shareholders whilst imposing real terms pay cuts on their employees. Wage settlements below the rate of inflation should mean no goodies for the owners.

Anyone who goes near a tax on the sale of private property will not see power

The other problem of attacking shares and dividends is they make up most peoples pension portfolio which 8f attacked will be equally unpopular

There is a reason this has not been touched before though a moderation in IHT allowances and a wealth tax time has come

Sadly you're probably right about capital gains on the sales of primary residences, but the thorough soaking of second home owners should be doable. People who own holiday homes are simply taking primary residences away from other people and, through the constriction of supply, making their contribution to the stoking of runaway house price inflation, which is the great evil that bedevils our economy. Why bother to invest in anything other than piles of fundamentally unproductive bricks when they represent a huge guaranteed return for zero risk?

Most people will benefit more from having their wages boosted than they will from having their pension pots boosted. If their wages are shite then they can't afford luxuries like pension contributions to begin with. And there seems nothing illogical in the basic concept that a private enterprise that is genuinely too skint to properly compensate its staff must also, by extension, be too skint to offer returns to its investors. Businesses that inflict poverty pay whilst distributing fat dividends are bleeding their employees white so that the owners can get richer

IHT is constructed so it's possible, under certain circumstances, to transmit a fortune of a million pounds without paying a penny. We don't need a minor correction of the allowances, we need a complete overhaul. If the bulk of estates (save where everything was being left to a surviving spouse) were subject to at least some level of IHT, then the Treasury could raise a fortune.

Holiday homes are being addressed in Wales and I believe Gove said something about England

Pension schemes grow over a long period of investment in dividends, no matter whether they are contributory or not and suggesting you have higher wages rather than accruing a pension could be the worst decision you ever make

I am not at all certain IHT on all estates would be a vote winner as you would have fierce objections from across the country, but 1 million tax free is far too high

In some Tory seats in parts of the Home Counties eg Beaconsfield, Esher and Walton vulnerable to the LDs as well as much of central London vulnerable to Labour £1 million is the average property price now.

Even in the South East overall the average property price is over £400k ie above the previous IHT threshold

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment

The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases

You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers

No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.

That's simply not true.

The difference between the very rich and most people is that (for the ultra rich) a 50% reduction in the value of their portfolios affects their life not one jot. They have become absolutely a lot poorer, but the impact on their lives will be almost non-existent.

My heart bleeds. I haven't seen evidence, however, of the very rich losing significant chunks of their portfolios.

Well, Elon has lost tens of billions with the Tesla share price down from $1,250 to $750.

The Nasdaq has fallen from 16,000 to 12,000. That's a 25% drop. So he won't be the only one.

My point is not that the uber-rich aren't extremely well insulated (they are), but that in percentage terms they do lose out, and it is incorrect to claim that they are getting richer.

Fair enough. But my point really is that, if you ignore the occasional blip, like the current one, the history of the world over the last 50 years is that the rich have done nothing but get richer, both in absolute terms and relative to others. The gap between the super rich and the rest has increased, dare I say, exponentially.

Fifty years takes us back to the year before my birth: 1972. Look at the UK in 1972 for the average person, and ask yourself were times better then? Black-and-white TV. No phone connection unless you were well-off (though that was changing). Strikes. Power cuts.

Yes, relative wealth has increased. But I'd argue that matters f***-all as long as most (nearly all) people have a better standard of living. How many people have outside loos nowadays?

I'd much rather live in 2022 (aside from Covid, which was a black swan) than 1972.

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

JosiasJessop said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment

The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases

You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers

No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.

That's simply not true.

The difference between the very rich and most people is that (for the ultra rich) a 50% reduction in the value of their portfolios affects their life not one jot. They have become absolutely a lot poorer, but the impact on their lives will be almost non-existent.

My heart bleeds. I haven't seen evidence, however, of the very rich losing significant chunks of their portfolios.

Well, Elon has lost tens of billions with the Tesla share price down from $1,250 to $750.

The Nasdaq has fallen from 16,000 to 12,000. That's a 25% drop. So he won't be the only one.

My point is not that the uber-rich aren't extremely well insulated (they are), but that in percentage terms they do lose out, and it is incorrect to claim that they are getting richer.

Fair enough. But my point really is that, if you ignore the occasional blip, like the current one, the history of the world over the last 50 years is that the rich have done nothing but get richer, both in absolute terms and relative to others. The gap between the super rich and the rest has increased, dare I say, exponentially.

Fifty years takes us back to the year before my birth: 1972. Look at the UK in 1972 for the average person, and ask yourself were times better then? Black-and-white TV. No phone connection unless you were well-off (though that was changing). Strikes. Power cuts.

Yes, relative wealth has increased. But I'd argue that matters f***-all as long as most (nearly all) people have a better standard of living. How many people have outside loos nowadays?

I'd much rather live in 2022 (aside from Covid, which was a black swan) than 1972.

You could make a fortune betting, mind.

Sandpit said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anabobazina said:

JosiasJessop 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.

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...)

Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.

Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).

I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.

Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.

This is something I’ve just thought about more, and it’s a profound and fundamental change.

With an ICE car, the first owner suffers the heavy depreciation, and generally buy on finance. The second owner generally buys with cash or a personal loan, and suffers a smaller depreciation.

With an EV, this might get reversed. The second owner, buying the three-year-old EV, is going to take the depreciation hit on the car. The life of the battery is much more dependent on how it’s been treated by the first owner, than an engine would be except in the most extreme circumstances.

This will have a huge effect on how car purchases are funded in the coming decade.

It depends to some extent on how cheap batteries can get when the volume of production is scaled up by an order of magnitude or two, and there's another decade of technical development.

An optimistic scenario would see the cost of batteries fall substantially, with a consequent knock-on impact to the affordability of both new cars, and replacing batteries in older cars. Fortunes to be made and lost in this area.

Prince William spotted selling the Big Issue in Central London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61747092.amp

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Talking of masks, today I was cycling in a particularly busy bit of London (Ludgate Circus) and as the lights turned from red to green for one direction this woman ran out, narrowly avoiding the oncoming rush of taxis, buses, cycle couriers, Boris bikers (bonjour and she wouldn't have had any trouble avoiding those) and uber drivers.

She made it to the other side of the road but only just, doing that running not running thing that people do when they are caught out.

And she was wearing a facemask.

I suppose people pick and choose the risks they want to take.

An acquaintance of ours would not have plastic toys in the house, due to outgassing. "It might harm our son." One weekend, he suffered a blowout at 100MPH with his toddler son in the back. When he got home, his son pulled a small bookcase down on himself (they had not tied it back), leading to the second A&E trip in a weekend.

I was flabbergasted that someone could think that outgassing from plastics was a serious issue, whilst driving like an @sshat and not tying back tall furniture was fine and dandy.

Driving at 100mph with anyone in the car, let alone a child, seems the height of irresponsibility.

The child wasn't a Ukrainian refugee was she by any chance, one of twins?

HYUFD said:

Prince William spotted selling the Big Issue in Central London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61747092.amp

Billy Bawheid utterly gutted that his secret do-gooding has come to the notice of the public.

Gardenwalker said:

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

Tactical voting is fine for by elections, where labour voters will vote lib dem en masse to defeat the tories, and the end game is clear, it will be interesting to see if there is widespread tactical voting at the GE, would require a pact of sorts locally, and that's where it could come unstuck

rcs1000 said:

Gardenwalker said:

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

If there's a repeat of GROT* from 1997, then that could have a very major impact on results.

It'd be interesting to run a simulation where 50% of the third placed party (if LD or Lab) went for the challenger with the best chance of beating the Conservatives. If they have dropped to 35% in the polls *and* there's widespread tactical voting then it could be a bloodbath for them, and the LDs could see a repeat of the 1997 election when they saw their vote share drop, and their seats double.

That said... the move to new boundaries confuses things, and makes tactical voting harder.

* GROT: Get Rid of Them

Do the new boundaries make things that much harder? There will be exceptions, but I imagine that a GROT calculator for England that went

1 Look out of your window in Spring or Summer. Can the view be described as "leafy"?
2 If "yes", vote Lib Dem
3 If "no", vote Labour

would predict what to do with 90% accuracy.

The most important thing is the presence or absence of Red-Yellow attacks at central level.

rcs1000 said:

Gardenwalker said:

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

If there's a repeat of GROT* from 1997, then that could have a very major impact on results.

It'd be interesting to run a simulation where 50% of the third placed party (if LD or Lab) went for the challenger with the best chance of beating the Conservatives. If they have dropped to 35% in the polls *and* there's widespread tactical voting then it could be a bloodbath for them, and the LDs could see a repeat of the 1997 election when they saw their vote share drop, and their seats double.

That said... the move to new boundaries confuses things, and makes tactical voting harder.

* GROT: Get Rid of Them

Probably not by much. Broadly speaking, in rural areas (except in North Wales and the very far North of England,) you vote Lib Dem to get rid of the Tories. Everywhere else you vote Labour. I know that's a crude generalisation and there are bound to be exceptions, but plenty of voters will not find this difficult to work out.

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Talking of masks, today I was cycling in a particularly busy bit of London (Ludgate Circus) and as the lights turned from red to green for one direction this woman ran out, narrowly avoiding the oncoming rush of taxis, buses, cycle couriers, Boris bikers (bonjour and she wouldn't have had any trouble avoiding those) and uber drivers.

She made it to the other side of the road but only just, doing that running not running thing that people do when they are caught out.

And she was wearing a facemask.

I suppose people pick and choose the risks they want to take.

An acquaintance of ours would not have plastic toys in the house, due to outgassing. "It might harm our son." One weekend, he suffered a blowout at 100MPH with his toddler son in the back. When he got home, his son pulled a small bookcase down on himself (they had not tied it back), leading to the second A&E trip in a weekend.

I was flabbergasted that someone could think that outgassing from plastics was a serious issue, whilst driving like an @sshat and not tying back tall furniture was fine and dandy.

Driving at 100mph with anyone in the car, let alone a child, seems the height of irresponsibility.

The child wasn't a Ukrainian refugee was she by any chance, one of twins?

Nope. We saw him on the Sunday morning, when he told us about the day he'd had on the Saturday. But I did not comment too much, as all the plastic toys they were given came to our house.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anabobazina said:

JosiasJessop 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.

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...)

Not sure buying EVs secondhand is wise at the best of times. Much/most of their value is in their batteries. How do you know that a secondhand battery isn't going to conk out on you in short order? A new vehicle under long warranty on PCP is probably the sweet spot.

Yeah, that's the big issue I have with buying a second-hand electric. But I'm too tight to buy a new one at the sort of price they are now (they are really expensive, and driving is just a tool for me; I don't particularly enjoy it).

I might consider leasing one, though, even though we could buy new.

Tesla are offering 8-year battery warranties, but there are horror stories of (last-generation) batteries failing just outside that time. Awesome if it fails just inside though. It does make one think twice about a second-hand one though, which may be really close to the original retail price at three years old, but could be worth very little at six or seven.

This is something I’ve just thought about more, and it’s a profound and fundamental change.

With an ICE car, the first owner suffers the heavy depreciation, and generally buy on finance. The second owner generally buys with cash or a personal loan, and suffers a smaller depreciation.

With an EV, this might get reversed. The second owner, buying the three-year-old EV, is going to take the depreciation hit on the car. The life of the battery is much more dependent on how it’s been treated by the first owner, than an engine would be except in the most extreme circumstances.

This will have a huge effect on how car purchases are funded in the coming decade.

It is worth remembering that EV batteries - while they may be useless for EVs after eight years - are still very valuable. Nissan, for example, sells their batteries on for use in home battery backup systems where the 20% capacity reduction is of no great consequence. (As space and weight don't matter, you just buy 20% more batteries.)

Yes, but these things are relative.

Ask the guy who paid $30k for an old Model S, why he needs to pay $20k more for a new battery to make his car work. That the old battery might be worth $5k or so, to a recycler, barely factors into the equation.

(Yes, there will be 3rd party battery repair shops in the future, but Tesla can (and does) already ban any car with a 3rd-party repair from the Supercharger network).

PJH said:

rcs1000 said:

Gardenwalker said:

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

If there's a repeat of GROT* from 1997, then that could have a very major impact on results.

It'd be interesting to run a simulation where 50% of the third placed party (if LD or Lab) went for the challenger with the best chance of beating the Conservatives. If they have dropped to 35% in the polls *and* there's widespread tactical voting then it could be a bloodbath for them, and the LDs could see a repeat of the 1997 election when they saw their vote share drop, and their seats double.

That said... the move to new boundaries confuses things, and makes tactical voting harder.

* GROT: Get Rid of Them

Don't forget that in 1997 the Lib Dems polled only 16.8% for 46 seats. The Lib Dem seat tally tracks the Conservative vote share inversely much more strongly than the Lib Dem vote share, against which seat changes are nearly random.

That's a fair point. In the last four General Elections, the LibDem vote and seat counts have only moved in the same direction once - 2015.

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

Well, Elon has has tens of billions with the Tesla share price down from $1,250 to $750.

Have you seen the build quality on the Cybertruck?

Some more beautiful photos of the Cybertruck from yesterday. @elonmusk

Photos shared by Nattanan here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2454508274644702?multi_permalinks=5031238446971659&hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1534187276464443393/photo/1

Panel gaps that would make a British Leyland fitter blush...

Ah, the Tesla Cybertruck. Announced in March 2019. Shown to have non-shatterproof windows shortly after. Who took paid pre-orders soon afterwards, and which had a 'prototype' unveiled this year. Three years after millions of $100 deposits were taken.

And which I'd be amazed would pass European safety legislation (particularly frontal impact to pedestrians).

In short: a scam. even when (if) it is delivered in the form shown.

Also the Tesla Semi; announced in 2017, for delivery in 2019. Thousands of multi-thousand dollar pre-orders. Production due (at the earliest) next year.

Tesla have made hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars from pre-announcing things they have not delivered. Perhaps the most egregious of this is their 'Full Self-Driving' suite. Which might be reasonable from a start-up. But which is sh*t behaviour from the world's largest car company.

deliver, then make customers pay.

(/cynic mode).

If I stay in the US, I think I'd much rather get the Rivian pick up than the Tesla one.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Does anyone still think Boris will increase his majority at the next election?

He will not be fighting it

You say this with such confidence, even though you said Johnson would lose the VONC too

I am with the 148 and will do everything to see Boris out of office and support the aims of the 148 100%.

I have e mailed my mp who voted for Boris accordingly and affirmed my support for Penny Mordaunt

The longer the polls are bad the less likely he is to survive, and do not underestimate the conservative party's desire for power and reinvention

pigeon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment

The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases

You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers

No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.

That's simply not true.

The difference between the very rich and most people is that (for the ultra rich) a 50% reduction in the value of their portfolios affects their life not one jot. They have become absolutely a lot poorer, but the impact on their lives will be almost non-existent.

My heart bleeds. I haven't seen evidence, however, of the very rich losing significant chunks of their portfolios.

Well, Elon has lost tens of billions with the Tesla share price down from $1,250 to $750.

The Nasdaq has fallen from 16,000 to 12,000. That's a 25% drop. So he won't be the only one.

My point is not that the uber-rich aren't extremely well insulated (they are), but that in percentage terms they do lose out, and it is incorrect to claim that they are getting richer.

Fair enough. But my point really is that, if you ignore the occasional blip, like the current one, the history of the world over the last 50 years is that the rich have done nothing but get richer, both in absolute terms and relative to others. The gap between the super rich and the rest has increased, dare I say, exponentially.

Fifty years takes us back to the year before my birth: 1972. Look at the UK in 1972 for the average person, and ask yourself were times better then? Black-and-white TV. No phone connection unless you were well-off (though that was changing). Strikes. Power cuts.

Yes, relative wealth has increased. But I'd argue that matters f***-all as long as most (nearly all) people have a better standard of living. How many people have outside loos nowadays?

I'd much rather live in 2022 (aside from Covid, which was a black swan) than 1972.

Average real wages in the UK will still be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008, analysis released by the Office Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects.

https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2021/10/uk-real-wages-will-still-be-lower-in-2026-than-they-were-in-2008

In the round people are obviously better off today than they were in 1972, but that's a pretty bloody low bar to be setting. And might one venture to suggest that an economic settlement in which the rich keep getting richer whilst Joe Average is basically left to rot until God alone knows when is somewhat sub-optimal?

It is worth noting that real wage growth has been pretty appalling in pretty much every major developed economy (except Australia and Canada) since 2008. This isn't just a British thing.

rcs1000 said:

Gardenwalker said:

rcs1000 said:

mickydroy said:

A resurgent lib dems, is the last thing the Tories need to hear, that could spell big trouble for them if it continues

Let's put "resurgence" in context for a second.

The LibDems are polling 13% right now, maybe 14% in a poll or two.

That's well up on where they were in 2015 (7.9%) and 2017 (7.4%), but is only a couple of percent above 2019 (11.6%).

Let's assume that they continue to improve and get to 15-16% at the General Election, which is a not inconceivable scenario. Fuck it. Let's go with 16%.

Let's also assume that the Conservatives drop 10% on their 2019 vote share.

The LDs will win a bunch of seats: they'll capture Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and at least half a dozen more seats.

But getting beyond about 25 seats (a more than doubling from 2019) is tough.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but have you properly factored in tactical voting against Tory incumbents, i.e, borrowed votes from Labour?

If there's a repeat of GROT* from 1997, then that could have a very major impact on results.

It'd be interesting to run a simulation where 50% of the third placed party (if LD or Lab) went for the challenger with the best chance of beating the Conservatives. If they have dropped to 35% in the polls *and* there's widespread tactical voting then it could be a bloodbath for them, and the LDs could see a repeat of the 1997 election when they saw their vote share drop, and their seats double.

That said... the move to new boundaries confuses things, and makes tactical voting harder.

* GROT: Get Rid of Them

I reckon this is overplayed. There aren't many seats where the main challenger isn't obvious.
1997 was on new boundaries, too.

JosiasJessop said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

pigeon said:

northern_monkey 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. 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".

I hear people complaining about fuel prices and access to health services. I was earwhigging to a bloke in the supermarket the other day moaning about how hard it is to get through to a doctors surgery to speak to someone, never mind get an appointment. 'They keep telling me to go online. I don't want to go online, why can't I just ring up and speak to someone and get an appointment that day like I used to?'

Oh, and the price of everything going up generally.

All this will sink the Tories, assuming this is being felt right across the country. Which it sounds like it is. That's what the vast majority of people who don't give two hoots about politics are worrying about.

Partygate and the aftermath cut through and sure people think Johnson's a lying buffoon, but people will vote on the above.

And it isn't going to get any easier. If we have a 70s redux this winter - stagflation, energy rationing, hell maybe even strikes - which some are forecasting, then they're done. Finito. Kaput.

I don't think Johnson's legacy is going to be looked on with any fondness in 10 years' time. In 20 years time I think we'll look back at it as a catastrophe.

I've been predicting a return to widespread industrial action for some time. I hope that I'm right. I have developed a growing conviction that it is justifiable in most cases and is to be welcomed.

The balance of economic and, therefore, political power in Britain has swung massively away from ordinary workers and towards a lucky and pampered generation of elderly homeowners and the downright rich. It's therefore high time that we had significant redistribution from the wealthy to the struggling.

We are never going to get that from the Tories because they only exist to transfer resources upwards. As far as I'm concerned, if strikes are going to both force bosses to heel and hasten the destruction of the current Government then they are to be celebrated twice over. Bring them on.

They will hasten the destruction of everyone's lives, incomes and see rocketing unemployment

The strongest may try to hold the country to ransom, but this is the one time I am pleased we have a government who will resist unaffordable pay increases

You can wish it away but the fact is everyone across the western world is going to be poorer, and it is HMG responsibility to protect the poorest - it cannot protect everyone including well paid train drivers

No, it is not true that "everyone across the western world is going to be poorer". The very rich will not be poorer. They never are. They are the strongest, not the unions.

That's simply not true.

The difference between the very rich and most people is that (for the ultra rich) a 50% reduction in the value of their portfolios affects their life not one jot. They have become absolutely a lot poorer, but the impact on their lives will be almost non-existent.

My heart bleeds. I haven't seen evidence, however, of the very rich losing significant chunks of their portfolios.

Well, Elon has lost tens of billions with the Tesla share price down from $1,250 to $750.

The Nasdaq has fallen from 16,000 to 12,000. That's a 25% drop. So he won't be the only one.

My point is not that the uber-rich aren't extremely well insulated (they are), but that in percentage terms they do lose out, and it is incorrect to claim that they are getting richer.

Fair enough. But my point really is that, if you ignore the occasional blip, like the current one, the history of the world over the last 50 years is that the rich have done nothing but get richer, both in absolute terms and relative to others. The gap between the super rich and the rest has increased, dare I say, exponentially.

Fifty years takes us back to the year before my birth: 1972. Look at the UK in 1972 for the average person, and ask yourself were times better then? Black-and-white TV. No phone connection unless you were well-off (though that was changing). Strikes. Power cuts.

Yes, relative wealth has increased. But I'd argue that matters f***-all as long as most (nearly all) people have a better standard of living. How many people have outside loos nowadays?

I'd much rather live in 2022 (aside from Covid, which was a black swan) than 1972.

I can still remember, as a child, hearing the adults ask each other: “Do you have a telephone?”

Meaning: do you have a telephone connection

The smartphone is surely the most important invention of the last 50 years