Howdy, Stranger!

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

Team Curtice or Team Kellner? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2022 in General
Team Curtice or Team Kellner? – politicalbetting.com

Should any @UKLabour supporters be feeling decidedly chipper this morning, here's @PeterKellner1 providing a wee bit of rain on your parade by contrasting by-election with next-election results. History doesn't necessarily repeat, mind! https://t.co/qej0bBYQ7O pic.twitter.com/0yefEyZVmp

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    edited December 2022
    I think using by-elections or mid-term opinion polls to predict the next general election is pseudo-science.

    Better, though obviously fallible, is to consider intangibles like the national mood, and indirect factors like the probable state of the economy two years hence. And on both of those, it looks pretty gloomy for the Conservatives, though of course a comeback following unexpected events is entirely possible. And don't underestimate non-Blair Labour's ability to f things up.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    edited December 2022
    How on earth can you compare by elections in sitting Conservative seats with a Labour seat, especially one mired in a sex conviction?

    This is beyond lazy by Kellner.

    Barring a nuclear attack on the UK, Labour will win a crushing outright majority at the next election and it's about time we saw at least one thread from the other perspective: one which asks the very real question: just how far can they go? Or asked another way, just how low could the tory seat total fall?

    Will this be 1997 or 1945? Or even more crushing?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    edited December 2022
    My own hunch is that the you should focus on by election seats where the government is the incumbent party, seats like Wakefield, North Shropshire, Tiverton & Honiton et al, where the results imply the government is on course for a shellacking.

    Wakefield looks rather like Corby to me (in terms of the by election and implied Labour leads).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Golden duck for Duckett following a century in the first innings.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Note the smaller swing when Labour gained Wirral South in February 1997. Clear evidence of the electorate beginning to make up their minds.
  • I don't understand this chart. This isn't all the by-elections, is it? So how are they selected?

    I kind of like the RodCrosby method of taking an average then subtracting whatever's typical. Was it 4% swing or 6% swing or something like that? Every by-election has special circumstances so you can reach any conclusion you like if you cherry-pick them.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    I don't understand this chart. This isn't all the by-elections, is it? So how are they selected?

    I kind of like the RodCrosby method of taking an average then subtracting whatever's typical. Was it 4% swing or 6% swing or something like that? Every by-election has special circumstances so you can reach any conclusion you like if you cherry-pick them.

    I don’t know the criteria, but I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Labour haven’t achieved the sorts of by-election results that Tony Blair did. Now, Starmer doesn’t need to be Tony Blair, but he does have to be better than Ed Miliband.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    England are going to lose this Test match.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    It’s all very mid term at the moment, but the Tories did crash the economy. My hunch is that Labour have a chance of power, which is pretty remarkable given the 2019 result. I put it no stronger than that.

    Obviously the Tories need a break. They’re divided and pretty much gone back on everything they previously stood for. Lower taxes and stability is not something they can offer next time with a straight face.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    Well worth watching Cara Delevingne's series Planet Sex. A really good eye-popping series. Shot in a contemporary way and highly educational.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0df25jx

    Leondamus will hate it but I do recommend watching this if you want to try to understand the way the world is, instead of raging against the dying light.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited December 2022
    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Yes, I think that is in line with his theories, odd though some of his ideas were.

    We have had unprecedented electoral volatility in recent elections so I am not convinced that swingback as measured previously is applicable. Nonetheless no room for complacency on the part of Labour, and to be fair no sign of complacency either.
  • I have said this a hundred times, I just cannot see labour winning a big majority, it would be a remarkable result, just wait for the predictable onslaught the right wing media will inflict on Starmer and Labour, Murdochs rags despise Starmer, going back to when he was DPP and Rebecca Brooks, there will be plenty of fools that think the Tories know best, remarkable as it may seem.I would argue that the value bet is Tories to win most seats, as horrible as that might sound
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Problem was that in the 2010 election, the one he used it to predict, the swingback turned out to be zero.

    It varied between zero and 8 percent swingback. Usually. Which made predictions from it fairly fraught.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    tlg86 said:

    England are going to lose this Test match.

    175 light of par…
  • Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Problem was that in the 2010 election, the one he used it to predict, the swingback turned out to be zero.

    It varied between zero and 8 percent swingback. Usually. Which made predictions from it fairly fraught.
    And that's consistent with the effect of the economy. 2008-10 were saw people get poorer, so the government's popularity didn't improve. The projections for the next two years look somewhere between as bad and worse.

    "Are you better off than you were?" is a big question at every election, and voters can tell by opening their wallets and purses. A combination of bad luck and bad judgement means that the answer in 2024 is set to be pretty negative.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Problem was that in the 2010 election, the one he used it to predict, the swingback turned out to be zero.

    It varied between zero and 8 percent swingback. Usually. Which made predictions from it fairly fraught.
    And in the last two elections, there was a swingaway of 2 points (2017), and 1 point swingback (2019).
    Haven’t looked at 2010-15 yet.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 113
    Voters can be very unpredictable. There was on TV a group panel of voters in Leigh, a red wall seat, for their reaction to Hunt's budget. They didn't seem to like the budget or Hunt or Sunak but....wait for it....they thought Truss hadn't been give a fair chance!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,728
    ...
  • Heathener said:

    How on earth can you compare by elections in sitting Conservative seats with a Labour seat, especially one mired in a sex conviction?

    This is beyond lazy by Kellner.

    Barring a nuclear attack on the UK, Labour will win a crushing outright majority at the next election and it's about time we saw at least one thread from the other perspective: one which asks the very real question: just how far can they go? Or asked another way, just how low could the tory seat total fall?

    Will this be 1997 or 1945? Or even more crushing?

    Would need an SNP collapse to make Labour win a stonking majority. A lot will depend on how much punishment English voters decide the Tories deserve.

    Let's assume the red wall largely returns to red. Question is about places dahn sarf once Labour - Medway as an example. Red again?

    And finally, let's consider the LibDems. 'led' by the thoroughly decent but thoroughly invisible Sir Ed Davey, if Tory voters in rural / posh areas also want to hurt the Tories then we see a surge in LD seat gains not captured by things like national swings.

    As the choice of government is always Tory of Labour, cutting the legs out of Tory shore seats helps Labour take power, big majority or not.
  • Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Great cartoon.

    Except for not being able to think of a synonym for ditto. Its repetition weakens the impact, as does the silence from the other boat.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Problem was that in the 2010 election, the one he used it to predict, the swingback turned out to be zero.

    It varied between zero and 8 percent swingback. Usually. Which made predictions from it fairly fraught.
    And in the last two elections, there was a swingaway of 2 points (2017), and 1 point swingback (2019).
    Haven’t looked at 2010-15 yet.
    And in 2015 it was about 6% swingback.

    So we have 0, 6, 1, -2 for swingback on the past four general elections against the average of GB by elections between them.
    (NB - the past three elections, I’ve done by mental arithmetic just now so could be off noticeably)

    Implying that the Labour lead will be between 4% greater and 12% less than the average of by-election leads, which isn’t as useful as it could be. Especially as we won’t know the average of by-election leads until just before the next GE.
  • Heathener said:

    How on earth can you compare by elections in sitting Conservative seats with a Labour seat, especially one mired in a sex conviction?

    This is beyond lazy by Kellner.

    Barring a nuclear attack on the UK, Labour will win a crushing outright majority at the next election and it's about time we saw at least one thread from the other perspective: one which asks the very real question: just how far can they go? Or asked another way, just how low could the tory seat total fall?

    Will this be 1997 or 1945? Or even more crushing?

    Would need an SNP collapse to make Labour win a stonking majority. A lot will depend on how much punishment English voters decide the Tories deserve.

    Let's assume the red wall largely returns to red. Question is about places dahn sarf once Labour - Medway as an example. Red again?

    And finally, let's consider the LibDems. 'led' by the thoroughly decent but thoroughly invisible Sir Ed Davey, if Tory voters in rural / posh areas also want to hurt the Tories then we see a surge in LD seat gains not captured by things like national swings.

    As the choice of government is always Tory of Labour, cutting the legs out of Tory shore seats helps Labour take power, big majority or not.
    A crushing Conservative defeat with no to tiny Labour majority could happen if everyone else does well enough. I wonder how large that space actually is?

    It would fit the national mood as well, we're collectively much better at saying what we don't want than what we do.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Great cartoon.

    Except for not being able to think of a synonym for ditto. Its repetition weakens the impact, as does the silence from the other boat.
    Poll off?
  • ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    England are going to lose this Test match.

    175 light of par…
    Damn. Should have backed Pakistan rather than the draw after suggesting England's first innings 657 might be due to the pitch. Call it the swingback theory of cricket betting.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited December 2022
    Heathener said:

    How on earth can you compare by elections in sitting Conservative seats with a Labour seat, especially one mired in a sex conviction?

    This is beyond lazy by Kellner.

    Barring a nuclear attack on the UK, Labour will win a crushing outright majority at the next election and it's about time we saw at least one thread from the other perspective: one which asks the very real question: just how far can they go? Or asked another way, just how low could the tory seat total fall?

    Will this be 1997 or 1945? Or even more crushing?

    It feels like you're right. I can't remember there ever being more antipathy felt towards a governing party.

    That 40% could be bothered to go out on a cold December night to show their loathing knowing the result was a foregone conclusion and without any great affection for Labour suggests they are now one very dead Parrot.

    That the enthusiasm for Labour isn't there yet suggests that their majority is likely to be even greater than the polls are predicting. The upside for them is now huge. The public just want rid -as they say in the North- and like '97 they'll do what they have to to make it happen
  • sbjme19 said:

    Voters can be very unpredictable. There was on TV a group panel of voters in Leigh, a red wall seat, for their reaction to Hunt's budget. They didn't seem to like the budget or Hunt or Sunak but....wait for it....they thought Truss hadn't been give a fair chance!

    There are posters here like that.

    Heck, there are posters who haven't fully accepted that Johnson had used up his nine lives.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,730
    Pakistan to win today?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,920

    Trying to do the Rod Crosby Swingback calculation just on Chester, don't bet the ranch on my maths:

    Wiki says Chester went Lab +11.2, Con -16.1, so the two-party swing is 27.3/2 = 13.65%
    Knock off the typical swingback which from memory was 4% => 9.65%

    Go to Baxter and add that to the Lab score and subtract it from the Con score and you get Lab 6 short of a majority:
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35.05&LAB=42.6&LIB=11.8&Reform=2.1&Green=2.8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.3&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=6.7&SCOTReform=0.6&SCOTGreen=1.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.7&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base

    Problem was that in the 2010 election, the one he used it to predict, the swingback turned out to be zero.

    It varied between zero and 8 percent swingback. Usually. Which made predictions from it fairly fraught.
    And in the last two elections, there was a swingaway of 2 points (2017), and 1 point swingback (2019).
    Haven’t looked at 2010-15 yet.
    And in 2015 it was about 6% swingback.

    So we have 0, 6, 1, -2 for swingback on the past four general elections against the average of GB by elections between them.
    (NB - the past three elections, I’ve done by mental arithmetic just now so could be off noticeably)

    Implying that the Labour lead will be between 4% greater and 12% less than the average of by-election leads, which isn’t as useful as it could be. Especially as we won’t know the average of by-election leads until just before the next GE.
    Labour short of a majority, and having to rely on LD or SNP backing would be the best result for the country. Would open the door to rejoining the single market.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,920
    ydoethur said:

    Pakistan to win today?

    No, Root will have completed a double century by then.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,760
    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,728

    Great cartoon.

    Except for not being able to think of a synonym for ditto. Its repetition weakens the impact, as does the silence from the other boat.

    It could be argued that ditto is in fact the perfect synonym for ditto...
  • Good morning

    As it happens I was replacing my 2022 wall chart with 2023 yesterday and on the side of it were the 2024 dates

    I realised that in one years time I will be putting up 2024 wall chart ( and noting our diamond wedding anniversary date) and that we could have a further year before a GE

    While everything points to a labour win it is hardly nailed on as much as many hope not least as within a 2 year time frame many events will happen which may well endorse labour's hopes but then may not
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. NorthWales, I'm not on the left, but it would take a black swan to avoid Labour winning the most seats and forming the government, either as coalition, minority, or perhaps with their own majority.

    The Conservatives have a lot against them. If it hadn't been for the Truss episode then Sunak might have been able to move things on, but instead of a fresh start Truss worsened their situation.

    The economy's in poor shape, the blues have been in for a long time, they've had a good amount of infighting, and the media (haven't shrieked about a bad exchange rate) have barely covered the pound's recovery.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. NorthWales, I'm not on the left, but it would take a black swan to avoid Labour winning the most seats and forming the government, either as coalition, minority, or perhaps with their own majority.

    The Conservatives have a lot against them. If it hadn't been for the Truss episode then Sunak might have been able to move things on, but instead of a fresh start Truss worsened their situation.

    The economy's in poor shape, the blues have been in for a long time, they've had a good amount of infighting, and the media (haven't shrieked about a bad exchange rate) have barely covered the pound's recovery.

    I agree entirely with your comments but it is still a long time to the next GE
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    I think the decision to start the test an hour later than it should have been each day will basically rob it of a result.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,263
    edited December 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Great cartoon.

    Except for not being able to think of a synonym for ditto. Its repetition weakens the impact, as does the silence from the other boat.
    'Me too!' would have done, or is that now a reserved phrase?

    'Same here!'
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,456
    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,263
    In the two years up to 1997 the Tories recovered more than half their polling deficit and still got a shellacking at the GE.

    And that was during a period of an economy on the mend. The run-up to GE24 will not have that benign economic backdrop.

    Morris is right, the Tories need a black swan.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,263
    edited December 2022
    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Get yourself a pressure-cooker, 8 hours becomes 2.5 hours.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited December 2022
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,458
    Ignore swing for a minute. The Tories got just 22.2% of the vote in Chester, on a decent turnout. In a by-election brought about by a Labour MP's resignation due to alleged sexual misconduct. If I were a Tory, that would worry me. One fifth of the vote in a place like Chester, which is hardly a citadel of woke socialists.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087
    As much as I'd like to see the Conservatives steamrollered - it is what they deserve - I just don't see them being completely swept away at the next election. This is not 1997: the Tories are loathed by much of the electorate BUT (1) there's no palpable enthusiasm for Labour and (2) society has changed enormously over the last 25 years. The economy and much of wider society is in a pitiful state, but there's also a large fraction of the population - yes, you've guessed it, monied pensioners with big houses and gold-plated pension entitlements, and their expectant heirs - who are still doing very nicely thank you and are liable to drift back to the Tories as the next election approaches.

    There are large numbers of ageing or aged voters who have a big interest in inflated property prices, nimby attitudes to development, pumping an ever-increasing share of national wealth into pensions and other elderly entitlements, and the preservation of inherited wealth, which is increasingly important to everyone's life chances as social mobility becomes a thing of the past for most people. Accounting for simple demography and differential turnout in elections, a majority of the electorate is now aged over 55, and this proportion continues to grow. All of these things play in the Tories' favour.

    Consider: even in 1997, Major managed to salvage a little over 30% of the popular vote (indeed, the Conservative Party has never polled below 30% in any General Election since its foundation by Peel in 1834.) Whatever the (notoriously fickle and unreliable) opinion polls say right now, I don't see them dipping below 30% in the next GE, and they'll probably do better than that. One third of the popular vote probably sees us into Hung Parliament territory: provided that the Government doesn't do anything electorally suicidal (like scrapping the triple lock or lowering the inheritance tax threshold,) Labour as largest party but short of a majority still seems like the most probable outcome of the next election to me.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    edited December 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Quite mild. on the surface. Some cartoonists would have made it rats leaving the ship. But the portrayal of well-dressed, well-groomed chapesses and chaps is more cutting, I think.

    Edit: and I think the 'ditto' is also intended to convey the same tone.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    tlg86 said:

    England are going to lose this Test match.

    Are they?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087
    edited December 2022
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    Pensioners are very numerous and vote religiously. The Tories aren't going to get smashed to bits, and Labour once in office will suck pensioner cock as well. If we are very lucky indeed then, being largely urban-based, they might defang the green belt Nimbies and get a lot of desperately needed new housing put up, but the bloody triple lock will last until it becomes economically impossible for the state to tax the working age population enough, and to borrow enough on top of that, to keep paying it out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    I'm surprised anyone takes the DT seriously. Remember, also, much of its readership is the Tory gerontocraciat. For which this is good news.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Curative. I get the no enthusiasm for Labour argument pigeon makes but they are pulling high, not merely the Tories dropping low. Even if that comes in a bit after midterm I think the core incumbent messages of 'don't risk a change' and 'let us fix this mess' will not be as effective
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Lots of people who are quite well off have been thinking such things perhaps for the first time ever. Shows just how bad things are that even those not actually struggling are conscious of cost.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Get yourself a pressure-cooker, 8 hours becomes 2.5 hours.
    Can you not nuke it? Clootie dumplings work surprisingly well in a microwave, but no idea if it translates over to Christmas puddings proper.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Lots of people who are quite well off have been thinking such things perhaps for the first time ever. Shows just how bad things are that even those not actually struggling are conscious of cost.
    I hope we have seen the last of the well off braying that the poor don't need food banks because they can
    get a sheep bone for 5p and stew it for 14 hours.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Pulpstar said:

    I think the decision to start the test an hour later than it should have been each day will basically rob it of a result.

    Seems like it, but at least a result looks possible, which is more than can be said about some other matches at the venue. Grounds should be punished if they deliver roads instead of pitches.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Get yourself a pressure-cooker, 8 hours becomes 2.5 hours.
    When you buy one from the supermarket, and the packet says you can either steam it for a week on the hob or put it in the microwave for five minutes, it always seems like an easy choice to me.

    Anyhow, when the moment comes after a big Xmas dinner, no-one ever wants it anyway.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,142
    edited December 2022
    The other thing that mitigates against drawing too strong conclusions from this by-election is that Sunak is still in what ought to be his honeymoon period.

    We had a tiny honeymoon - a clawback of a handful of percentage points. But nothing yet to puncture it properly. it’s a while since any obviously bad news for the Tory party. The budget was dull but no surprises. The asylum seekers story is a few weeks old now and those stories tend not to favour Labour either.

    With the latest sexual assault scandal brewing and people about to get their first properly huge heating bills of the winter we might be about to enter another difficult patch for the government.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Heathener said:

    Well worth watching Cara Delevingne's series Planet Sex. A really good eye-popping series. Shot in a contemporary way and highly educational.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0df25jx

    Leondamus will hate it but I do recommend watching this if you want to try to understand the way the world is, instead of raging against the dying light.

    She did it well.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited December 2022
    The Athletic have crunched the numbers and bet accordingly.

    You don’t tend to hear broadcasters mention their rivals by name too often but Gary Lineker, with a trademark knowing glance, couldn’t help himself.

    “England finish top and will take on Senegal at 7pm on Sunday,” he said after the 3-0 win over Wales. “That’s live on, well, ITV. Oh well.”

    Whether Lineker was merely lightheartedly bemoaning that a big England game wasn’t on the BBC was irrelevant. The nation made up its mind. He was playing the ITV curse card.

    The numbers don’t lie — England have statistically won far more World Cup or European Championship matches screened on the BBC in the past few decades. In fact it’s not even close.

    In the 13 big tournaments England have played since Euro 96, they have won 21 of their 31 games shown on the BBC (we are including rare occasions when both channels show the same match, i.e. the Euro 2020 final, the Euro 96 semi-final and even the group-stage rematch against Germany four years later at Euro 2000). That’s a win percentage of 68 per cent.

    ITV’s equivalent numbers for World Cups and Euros since 1996 are nine victories from 23 matches, a 39 per cent win rate.

    The disparity is even greater when you ditch the Euros and just look at World Cups; BBC 71 per cent win ratio, ITV a miserable 19 per cent, with three wins from 16 matches. And one of those wins was against Trinidad & Tobago, one ended a draw after extra time and the other was actually shown on the BBC as well.

    The BBC have obviously screened some particularly painful defeats, like both quarter-final penalty-shoot out losses against Portugal in the mid-2000s and the humiliating 4-1 defeat to Germany. But when it comes to soul destroying misery and collective mass feeling of self-worthlessness, well that’s ITV’s bag.


    https://theathletic.com/3964222/2022/12/04/england-itv-curse-world-cup/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    England just being a little more reckless than the 1st innings, where they went just as fast but without losing wickets. If they don't bat out a few more hours at least they lose.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,142
    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Lots of people who are quite well off have been thinking such things perhaps for the first time ever. Shows just how bad things are that even those not actually struggling are conscious of cost.
    I’ve used the pressure cooker way more in the last month than the preceding few years. Did a tagine in it last night and pre-cooked a whole roast Pork shoulder a few weeks back. Not as good as slow cooking but saves a lot of energy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    England have to bea touch careful here, there's not much sign of the pitch breaking up
  • Pulpstar said:

    England have to bea touch careful here, there's not much sign of the pitch breaking up

    Adelaide 2006 all over again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Not only was the Chester swing to Starmer lower than what Ed Miliband got in Corby, it was also lower than the 17% swing Cameron got in Crewe in 2008.

    Neither Miliband nor Cameron won a majority at the following general election and with Opinium last night showing the Tories narrowing the gap no room for complacency for Starmer and some hope for Sunak
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Heathener said:

    Well worth watching Cara Delevingne's series Planet Sex. A really good eye-popping series. Shot in a contemporary way and highly educational.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0df25jx

    Leondamus will hate it but I do recommend watching this if you want to try to understand the way the world is, instead of raging against the dying light.

    I'd say Delevinge is a bit past it now, wouldn't you? Very much giving me the musty odour of 2014. Which would be why she's making documentaries on Aunty Beeb. Do try and be a bit more current.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Lots of people who are quite well off have been thinking such things perhaps for the first time ever. Shows just how bad things are that even those not actually struggling are conscious of cost.
    I hope we have seen the last of the well off braying that the poor don't need food banks because they can
    get a sheep bone for 5p and stew it for 14 hours.
    Unlikely. The haves in contemporary society are disproportionately old gits harbouring rose tinted nostalgia for the pre-Common Market age of pounds, shillings and pence, coal fires, frost on the insides of windows and power cuts survived by candlelight. The basic attitude is "we managed, so suck it up - and give us more of your money while you're at it." It's all very Ebenezer Scrooge before the ghosts came calling, basically.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758
    Pulpstar said:

    England have to bea touch careful here, there's not much sign of the pitch breaking up

    Stokes overdoing it again. Yes, they want to score quickly but you still need to play yourself in, even on this surface. If Livingstone is not fit to bat this seems bordering on reckless.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Carnyx said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    I'm surprised anyone takes the DT seriously. Remember, also, much of its readership is the Tory gerontocraciat. For which this is good news.
    The DT reaches the Tory core vote, it is the Tory House journal as much as the Guardian is for Labour amongst broadsheets
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
  • Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    My view is that the Conservatives will recover (slightly) as the reality of what a Labour government would actually do comes into focus.

    This will be largely rallying DNVs and WNVs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    edited December 2022
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    I think you're wilfully ignoring the very large elephant in the room. Tory policies on house price inflation in the SE, and inheritance. That has a far greater and wider impact than a few top salaries.

    I recommended this piece a day or two back but it was at the end of a thread - it's worth reading, partly for the social observation. When something becomes as unspoken as defecatory habits, you know you have a problem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/dec/03/why-inheritance-is-the-dirty-secret-of-the-middle-classes-harder-to-talk-about-than-sex
  • Heathener said:

    Well worth watching Cara Delevingne's series Planet Sex. A really good eye-popping series. Shot in a contemporary way and highly educational.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0df25jx

    Leondamus will hate it but I do recommend watching this if you want to try to understand the way the world is, instead of raging against the dying light.

    I'd say Delevinge is a bit past it now, wouldn't you? Very much giving me the musty odour of 2014. Which would be why she's making documentaries on Aunty Beeb. Do try and be a bit more current.
    I wouldn't mind sex with Cara Delevingne.

    But, I can never tell if she'd be interested or not.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    I think you're wilfully ignoring the very large elephant in the room. Tory policies on house price inflation in the SE, and inheritance. That has a far greater and wider impact than a few top salaries.

    I recommended this piece a day or two back but it was at the end of a thread - it's worth reading, partly for the social observation. When something becomes as unspoken as defecatory habits, you know you have a problem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/dec/03/why-inheritance-is-the-dirty-secret-of-the-middle-classes-harder-to-talk-about-than-sex
    Inheritance is the less selfish option. It means people are working and saving in order to pass something on to other people. The opposite would be someone who makes money just for themselves.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    IanB2 said:

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Get yourself a pressure-cooker, 8 hours becomes 2.5 hours.
    When you buy one from the supermarket, and the packet says you can either steam it for a week on the hob or put it in the microwave for five minutes, it always seems like an easy choice to me.

    Anyhow, when the moment comes after a big Xmas dinner, no-one ever wants it anyway.
    Not in my natal family. The men, at least, always left some room for the clootie dumpling. And then had some more. And had the remainder sliced and fried in butter, or warmed in the oven, for pudding for the next 2-3 days. Some people have it sliced and fried with bacon for breakfast as well, or instead.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    Ignore swing for a minute. The Tories got just 22.2% of the vote in Chester, on a decent turnout. In a by-election brought about by a Labour MP's resignation due to alleged sexual misconduct. If I were a Tory, that would worry me. One fifth of the vote in a place like Chester, which is hardly a citadel of woke socialists.

    There's a heck of a lot of well off Cheshire countryside in the seat, too. Being a City disguises the fact that, but for its history, Chester is actually quite a small town.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,117
    Andy_JS said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    I think you're wilfully ignoring the very large elephant in the room. Tory policies on house price inflation in the SE, and inheritance. That has a far greater and wider impact than a few top salaries.

    I recommended this piece a day or two back but it was at the end of a thread - it's worth reading, partly for the social observation. When something becomes as unspoken as defecatory habits, you know you have a problem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/dec/03/why-inheritance-is-the-dirty-secret-of-the-middle-classes-harder-to-talk-about-than-sex
    Inheritance is the less selfish option. It means people are working and saving in order to pass something on to other people. The opposite would be someone who makes money just for themselves.
    But is that even possible? Seriously? One needs to save for one's old age anyway and any disasters on the way - it's only if there is something left that you can even think about leaving the money. Unless you think that the taxpayer should cover all the risk.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    HYUFD said:

    Not only was the Chester swing to Starmer lower than what Ed Miliband got in Corby, it was also lower than the 17% swing Cameron got in Crewe in 2008.

    Neither Miliband nor Cameron won a majority at the following general election and with Opinium last night showing the Tories narrowing the gap no room for complacency for Starmer and some hope for Sunak

    They weren't the incumbent though.
    The turnout for a foregone conclusion was decent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited December 2022
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    England have to bea touch careful here, there's not much sign of the pitch breaking up

    Stokes overdoing it again. Yes, they want to score quickly but you still need to play yourself in, even on this surface. If Livingstone is not fit to bat this seems bordering on reckless.
    Yes, he could take at least a few overs to bed himself in - when you get going you more than make up for it, see Brooks getting 20 in an over once in.

    But at least their approach forces results, and they are technically scoring average to bigger than average totals, so teamwise there can be no complaints.

    Current run rate 7.44 - utterly hilarious.
  • BozzaBozza Posts: 37
    edited December 2022
    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    A change of leadership from a vin ordinaire Prime Minister to a certified winner, especially against a seated row of Opposition Front Bench nincompoops would do the trick.
  • Mr. Bozza, it might.

    With Sunak as PM the question is whether I vote Conservative or not. If Boris Johnson returns, there's a greater chance of me voting Labout, or for a third party, than Conservative.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    England have to bea touch careful here, there's not much sign of the pitch breaking up

    Stokes overdoing it again. Yes, they want to score quickly but you still need to play yourself in, even on this surface. If Livingstone is not fit to bat this seems bordering on reckless.
    Yes, he could take at least a few overs to bed himself in - when you get going you more than make up for it, see Brooks getting 20 in an over once in.

    But at least their approach forces results, and they are technically scoring average to bigger than average totals, so teamwise there can be no complaints.

    Current run rate 7.44 - utterly hilarious.
    It's certainly exciting cricket. Some of Brook's shots have been extraordinary. They just need to remember that this wicket is giving nothing to bowlers and Pakistan can score quickly too if they have a reason to do so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    I will be cooking the Christmas pud today (I know, I'm late). 8 hours on the hob. It is the first time I have ever considered how much that costs and it's not as if I can't afford it. Weird.

    Lots of people who are quite well off have been thinking such things perhaps for the first time ever. Shows just how bad things are that even those not actually struggling are conscious of cost.
    I hope we have seen the last of the well off braying that the poor don't need food banks because they can
    get a sheep bone for 5p and stew it for 14 hours.
    Unlikely. The haves in contemporary society are disproportionately old gits harbouring rose tinted nostalgia for the pre-Common Market age of pounds, shillings and pence, coal fires, frost on the insides of windows and power cuts survived by candlelight. The basic attitude is "we managed, so suck it up - and give us more of your money while you're at it." It's all very Ebenezer Scrooge before the ghosts came calling, basically.
    But if only people didn't buy a starbucks coffee so much or have a smartphone they would be able to buy a house!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,760
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    I think you will be disappointed…
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    My view is that the Conservatives will recover (slightly) as the reality of what a Labour government would actually do comes into focus.

    This will be largely rallying DNVs and WNVs.
    They may get a few WNV’s to actually vote but that will be it.

    The Tories did well in 2015 because a lot of the impact on austerity was binned on the local Labour councils so many voters blamed the Tories. This time round the only party to blame is incredibly obvious.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited December 2022
    Heathener said:

    Will this be 1997 or 1945? Or even more crushing?

    So you're suggesting a Labour majority somewhere between 145 and 179, or more?
  • BozzaBozza Posts: 37
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
    Even if you have already decided that the Conservatives since Liz Truss's have let the agenda run away from them, you must consider that if Sir Keir Chavez became Prime Minister we would have a sub-Venezuelan economy within six months. Remember 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    Bozza said:

    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    A change of leadership from a vin ordinaire Prime Minister to a certified winner, especially against a seated row of Opposition Front Bench nincompoops would do the trick.
    Shame for the Tories that there's no such
    person.
    Plenty of certified, though.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited December 2022
    Morning citoyens.

    With PB's posting history, it's not actually impossible that the real Bozza would turn up to boost his chances. I don't think Bozza is that Bozza, but maybe one day.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Bozza said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
    Even if you have already decided that the Conservatives since Liz Truss's have let the agenda run away from them, you must consider that if Sir Keir Chavez became Prime Minister we would have a sub-Venezuelan economy within six months. Remember 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997?
    Be a pity to bin this Land of Joy the Tories have built.
  • Bozza said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
    Even if you have already decided that the Conservatives since Liz Truss's have let the agenda run away from them, you must consider that if Sir Keir Chavez became Prime Minister we would have a sub-Venezuelan economy within six months. Remember 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997?
    Remember 1950, 1966, October 1974 and 2001?

    One of the stories that Conservatives like to tell themselves at this stage in the cycle is that it will just be a short break, the public will hate the reality of a Socialist Government and the Conservatives will quickly bounce back.

    The evidence for that is patchy.
  • eek said:

    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    My view is that the Conservatives will recover (slightly) as the reality of what a Labour government would actually do comes into focus.

    This will be largely rallying DNVs and WNVs.
    They may get a few WNV’s to actually vote but that will be it.

    The Tories did well in 2015 because a lot of the impact on austerity was binned on the local Labour councils so many voters blamed the Tories. This time round the only party to blame is incredibly obvious.
    Labour's policy on private school fees is a gift in the blue wall.

    That will rally votes for the Conservatives in Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey.
  • Sturgeon made a startling admission – that the risks she had previously dismissed – that predatory men could seek to abuse a system to harm women – as not valid, do in fact exist.

    And therefore, by her own logic, women are indeed the collateral damage she is willing to offer up as the price for pursuing a policy rooted in gender ideology that ignores the biological reality of most women’s lives and the duplicity of male abusers.

    The first minister, it appears, has had a Damascene conversion and now joins the ranks of those of us who have been arguing for years that the policy of self-ID was inherently risky to the safety of women because of men – not the trans people, as activists have wilfully manipulated the narrative to be – who will take advantage of any loosening of the already meagre protections that exist for women.

    Does that now make Sturgeon a transphobe? I suspect she would vigorously argue it does not. And yet she has stood by while others who have been arguing that exact same point have been vilified.


    https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,has-nicola-sturgeon-finally-woken-up-to-the-dangers-of-selfid
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Bozza said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
    Even if you have already decided that the Conservatives since Liz Truss's have let the agenda run away from them, you must consider that if Sir Keir Chavez became Prime Minister we would have a sub-Venezuelan economy within six months. Remember 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997?
    Remember 1950, 1966, October 1974 and 2001?

    One of the stories that Conservatives like to tell themselves at this stage in the cycle is that it will just be a short break, the public will hate the reality of a Socialist Government and the Conservatives will quickly bounce back.

    The evidence for that is patchy.
    The Tories won the 1951 election, the 1970 election and the 1979 election.

    Only after 1997 did they face more than a decade in opposition and the 2024 economic environment for Starmer is far tougher than 1997 was for New Labour and Blair
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited December 2022

    eek said:

    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    My view is that the Conservatives will recover (slightly) as the reality of what a Labour government would actually do comes into focus.

    This will be largely rallying DNVs and WNVs.
    They may get a few WNV’s to actually vote but that will be it.

    The Tories did well in 2015 because a lot of the impact on austerity was binned on the local Labour councils so many voters blamed the Tories. This time round the only party to blame is incredibly obvious.
    Labour's policy on private school fees is a gift in the blue wall.

    That will rally votes for the Conservatives in Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey.
    You may be right on that Casino. It's probably focus-grouped on the red wall, as the similarly focus-grouped gesture politics, rather than structural reform, of the assisted places policy probably was.
  • Wasn't expecting a declaration!
  • Morning citoyens.

    With PB's posting history, it's not actually impossible that the real Bozza would turn up to boost his chances. I don't think Bozza is that Bozza, but maybe one day.

    In which case, sorry Bozza but it's over.

    Every opportunity the good fairy gave you has turned to dung because of the character flaws the bad fairy gave you.

    Si monumentum requiris circumspice as they must have taught you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    It's the government's job to properly regulate markets and ensure wealth isn't concentrated among too few people. A minimum wage rise doesn't necessarily help someone earning between £40-50k who has seen their tax bill rise and has seen a big rise in costs due to mortgage rates rising and inflation going up much faster than their wages. That working age person would have been a Tory voter under Cameron, they are now solidly Labour and that person is a marginal voter.

    The Tories have lost control of public spending, have lost control of pension spending and are going to be rightly punished by working age people at the next election. Labour might not have the answers, but we know the Tories don't. I was at a members event just recently and once again it showed me just how out of touch they all are. Selfish, old and completely insane.
    Inflation is rising mainly because of the Ukraine war reducing supplies and sanctions, that in turn leads to higher interest rates. Labour will put up tax on middle earners more than the Tories.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    I am the only one who finds all this anti-pensioner sentiment to be in bad taste?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Stokes obviously rates his bowling attack
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,458

    eek said:

    Sean_F said:

    I expect Labour will win an overall majority, but then, in mid-2008, I expected the Conservatives would win an overall majority.

    Governments recover, somewhat, from their mid-term polling.

    My view is that the Conservatives will recover (slightly) as the reality of what a Labour government would actually do comes into focus.

    This will be largely rallying DNVs and WNVs.
    They may get a few WNV’s to actually vote but that will be it.

    The Tories did well in 2015 because a lot of the impact on austerity was binned on the local Labour councils so many voters blamed the Tories. This time round the only party to blame is incredibly obvious.
    Labour's policy on private school fees is a gift in the blue wall.

    That will rally votes for the Conservatives in Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey.
    Oh no! Labour is completely doomed if it doesn't win lots of seats in Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2022
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/

    And the Tories wonder why their poll ratings are in the toilet. They will get deservedly smashed to bits in 2024, I just hope Labour have the cojones to means test the state pension and close all defined benefit schemes across the public sector.

    That the Tories have boosted pensioners' incomes is hardly surprising, they are their core vote.

    However they have also increased the minimum wage too for the lowest earning workers. If average earners are not seeing much rise in wages that is more the fault of capitalism and big corporations than the Tories.

    It is capitalism which is concentrating a big rise in incomes and wages on a small elite ie in the City of London, Premiership footballers, chief executives and directors and tech entrepreneurs not the government. All the government can do is tax that elite more but that does not do much more for the average worker unless they work in the public sector and the government spends more on increasing their wages as their employer, as Labour would do in power
    I think you're wilfully ignoring the very large elephant in the room. Tory policies on house price inflation in the SE, and inheritance. That has a far greater and wider impact than a few top salaries.

    I recommended this piece a day or two back but it was at the end of a thread - it's worth reading, partly for the social observation. When something becomes as unspoken as defecatory habits, you know you have a problem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/dec/03/why-inheritance-is-the-dirty-secret-of-the-middle-classes-harder-to-talk-about-than-sex
    Without inheritance and parental assistance for deposits barely anyone in London and the South East would be able to buy a house on an average income. As that very article makes clear when May threatened to take that inheritance she lost the majority the Tories won in 2015 under Cameron and Osborne promising an inheritance tax cut. It also mentions polling with half wanting inheritance tax abolished and 2/3 no rise in it.

    Failing to cut immigration and not building enough affordable houses is more the issue in terms of higher house prices in the South.

This discussion has been closed.