Labour STILL not odds-on for an overall majority – politicalbetting.com

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

There are plenty of conservative young Britons
but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'

Democracy beats the alternatives.

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

There are plenty of conservative young Britons
but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'

Democracy beats the alternatives.

True. But democracy does rely upon the consent of the loser. If every right leaning government rubs your face in their victory and has little thought to your livelihood you begin to question the system.

JosiasJessop said:

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

There are plenty of conservative young Britons
but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'

Democracy beats the alternatives.

True. But democracy does rely upon the consent of the loser. If every right leaning government rubs your face in their victory and has little thought to your livelihood you begin to question the system.

Does that only apply to 'right leaning' governments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ZaqvBEeJw

Stuartinromford said:

Back to the header, If the Conservatives do badly enough, Labour get a majority by default; there are only so many seats the Lib Dems, SNP et al can mop up.

I reckon the breakpoint is about 225 Conservatives. If NOM and Labour majority are equally likely, that points to that being their expected score.

If the real economy for 2023 matches the OBR's expectations, that seems optimistic.

Jonathan said:

kinabalu said:

Jonathan said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

JosiasJessop said:

StuartDickson said:

Baxter’s latest prediction published:

Lab 422 seats (+219)
Con 134 seats (-231)
SNP 54 seats (+6)
LD 16 seats (+5)

Labour majority of 194

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.

By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.

I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.

If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.

If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.

If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.

Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.

How? The Tories would be back in. The only electoral reform they are interested in will strengthen their position under FPTP.

We could easily be in for five more years of this chaos.

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.

Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.

But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.

The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.

You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.


Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex
not Surrey and West London and with over 65s

This arrogance is why you will lose. You don’t want our votes, we will vote Labour then

It is not arrogance, just changing demographics.

In 1997 the typical Conservative voter left was upper middle class, wealthy and a high earner and lived in West London or the South East.

Now the typical Conservative voter left is skilled working class, retired, a home owner and lives in Essex or Kent or the Midlands.

Albeit Sunak might make it a little more like 1997 than Boris or Truss would in terms of voter coalition but the trend is the same

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

The UC taper rate has entered the chat.

StuartDickson said:

Cicero said:

StuartDickson said:

London
Lab 49%
Con 20%
Ref 10%
LD 10%
Grn 7%

Rest of South
Lab 44%
Con 28%
LD 12%
Grn 8%
Ref 7%

Midlands and Wales
Lab 44%
Con 21%
Grn 10%
Ref 10%
LD 9%
PC 4%

North
Lab 55%
Con 15%
Grn 10%
Ref 8%
LD 5%

Scotland
SNP 62%
Lab 18%
Grn 6%
LD 5%
Con 4%
Ref 2%

(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)

While I appreciate that Stuart will be beyond delighted at those Scottish numbers, they look pretty rogue to me.

I’m not “delighted” at all. I made no comment whatsoever. I wasn’t born yesterday. So, typical PB straw man.

The last think either Nicola S or Keir S need is for the general impression to become cemented that their respective parties are guaranteed to win by landslides in their respective countries. They need to keep the troops on their toes. And get the bloody voters out.

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

You are hit by the taper which is why most people play games to keep their income below £100,000 by throwing more into the pension pot.

I suspect if HMRC did a proper survey there would be a significant reduction in people earning between £100,000 and £130,000 compared to the below and above that figure.

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Only because democracy has worked for their generation!

This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young

'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.

Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.

There are plenty of conservative young Britons
but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'

Democracy beats the alternatives.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Can you cite evidence for these claims?

I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?

There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.

Let’s see the poll then.

Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.

If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/29/sahra-wagenknecht-german-left-die-linke-breakaway-far-right-afd

I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.

This is the problem I see and I do not see either the current government or Starmer providing any kind of a solution. Our body politic is fragmenting. We still have the remainers against the Brexiteers, we have old (with the triple lock) against the young (student debt and horrendous housing prospects), Unionists against Nationalists here in Scotland, city dwellers against town and country, capital against income, there are divisions everywhere. We no longer have a clear national consensus and I don't see us getting one soon.

Malmesbury said:

From the other day...

Nigelb said:

Thread for @Malmesbury

Have you ever heard of a gas core reactor? No not a gas cooled reactor, but a reactor with a gas CORE! This is a concept dating back to the Manhattan Project to just let the core become gaseous (or maybe plasma) instead of solid or even liquid.
https://twitter.com/GBruhaug/status/1607921318371934211

A design for those who aren't TORY enough.

Up there with the all time greats....

"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "

"Er.... ok."

"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."

The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.

No_Offence_Alan said:

JosiasJessop said:

StuartDickson said:

Baxter’s latest prediction published:

Lab 422 seats (+219)
Con 134 seats (-231)
SNP 54 seats (+6)
LD 16 seats (+5)

Labour majority of 194

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.

Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.

No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

In summary:
• Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
• Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
• Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873

I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.

That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

My own view, often posted here, is that voters do not shift their views to the right, so much as the zeitgeist shifts left to incorporate the previously radical views of ageing voters. So those who fought for gay rights or equal pay for women or the end of capital punishment in the 60s and 70s were accommodated by the establishment. In particular, Conservatives did not seek to reverse those once-radical gains.

So it may be that Culture Wars, and talk of restricting abortions, and embracing the sometimes misogynistic American alt-right, so these gains do seem to be threatened, is counter-productive. Same with opposing freedom of movement.

londonpubman said:

I think the GE will be

LAB 340
CON 225
SNP 40
LD 20
PC 5
OTHER mainly NI 20

So LAB maj 30.

NickPalmer said:

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to the hospital to see the surgeon who will do my spinal surgery. Feeling very tense. Hopefully will get a date for the operation

Good luck, Mike! In general I think the system still works well when you do finally get to see them. Hope you get an op date soon.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Can you cite evidence for these claims?

I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?

There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.

Let’s see the poll then.

Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.

If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit

Casino_Royale said:

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

In summary:
• Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
• Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
• Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873

I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.

That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.

It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/29/sahra-wagenknecht-german-left-die-linke-breakaway-far-right-afd

I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.

This is the problem I see and I do not see either the current government or Starmer providing any kind of a solution. Our body politic is fragmenting. We still have the remainers against the Brexiteers, we have old (with the triple lock) against the young (student debt and horrendous housing prospects), Unionists against Nationalists here in Scotland, city dwellers against town and country, capital against income, there are divisions everywhere. We no longer have a clear national consensus and I don't see us getting one soon.

Education is free in Scotland, is it not David. Students may borrow money but not for the education.

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

From the other day...

Nigelb said:

Thread for @Malmesbury

Have you ever heard of a gas core reactor? No not a gas cooled reactor, but a reactor with a gas CORE! This is a concept dating back to the Manhattan Project to just let the core become gaseous (or maybe plasma) instead of solid or even liquid.
https://twitter.com/GBruhaug/status/1607921318371934211

A design for those who aren't TORY enough.

Up there with the all time greats....

"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "

"Er.... ok."

"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."

The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.

As long as you did not fool around with the Demon Core:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

Peter_the_Punter said:

NickPalmer said:

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to the hospital to see the surgeon who will do my spinal surgery. Feeling very tense. Hopefully will get a date for the operation

Good luck, Mike! In general I think the system still works well when you do finally get to see them. Hope you get an op date soon.

And from me, Mike. Good luck and all the best for the new year.

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.

It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.

Agreed. We often overrate the importance of polls showing that most people agree with one side or the other in a culture war. If you ask people, they'll give an opinion. But it doesn't mean they actually think about it much or let it decide how they vote. The best political strategy is to decline to give an opinion, so you don't get classed as an enemy by one group of zealots or another, and are seen as sensibly concentrating on more important matters by the uncommitted majority.

The US seems rather different in that way from us, perhaps because the lack of limits on political advertising enables culture warriors to hammer home the message every day of the week.

There’s not much to distinguish Republicans and Democrats economically, or over the USA’s place in the world.

So, cultural issues fill the void.

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

NEW: conservatives have a Millennials problem.

In both UK & US, it’s not just that Millennials aren’t voting conservative because they’re young.

Every previous generation grew more conservative with age, but Millennials are not playing ball.

My column: https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/a0c1c1b2-eda9-48b6-890a-2bac5ee6a9ac




https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":

In summary:
• Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to:
• Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views
• Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608759052301135873

I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.

It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.

That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.



Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.

But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.

I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.

It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.

One mistake here, I personally don't think that voting conservative is a proxy for right wing views. Ever since Cameron the conservatives have veered leftward and been spaffing cash left right and centre on the populace. Hardly the hall mark of a right wing party. About the only thing you could point at as right wing in the tories of the last 12 years is possibly immigration and even then remainers have been the ones wanting a more racist immigration policy

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

The UC taper rate has entered the chat.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.

Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.

Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to
change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is
consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.

Agreed. A shift from taxing income to taxing capital would be quite fair.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Can you cite evidence for these claims?

I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?

kjh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

You must hate George Osborne.

I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.

I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.

The fact that the marginal rate for tax/ni goes up and down like a yo-yo doesn't help at all I agree. If you fall in the band just above £100,000 and can't afford to put it into a pension pot I would still do it and borrow what you need. Cheaper to borrow than that lost to tax. Remember my recommendation sometime ago re using 0% Credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards. That is free borrowing for often 2 years and you can often transfer to another 0% transfer card, often free of any fee at the end of 2 years. It takes awhile to build up, but you get an immediate benefit of only paying the minimum on your credit card bills now.

I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

pigeon said:

Heathener said:

pigeon said:

Jonathan said:

Mid term.

Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.

There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.

I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.

Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.

But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.

It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.

It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.

An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.

Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.

There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.

I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.

Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.

Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

The UC taper rate has entered the chat.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.

Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.

Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.

Oh, I agree.

More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.

In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.

NeilVW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

pigeon said:

Heathener said:

pigeon said:

Jonathan said:

Mid term.

Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.

There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.

I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.

Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.

But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.

It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.

It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.

An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.

Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.

There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.

I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.

Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.

Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.

That slogan was for 1997 wasn’t it? In 1992 we had the pain but precious little sign yet of anything working, economically.

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

You must hate George Osborne.

I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.

I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.

The fact that the marginal rate for tax/ni goes up and down like a yo-yo doesn't help at all I agree. If you fall in the band just above £100,000 and can't afford to put it into a pension pot I would still do it and borrow what you need. Cheaper to borrow than that lost to tax. Remember my recommendation sometime ago re using 0% Credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards. That is free borrowing for often 2 years and you can often transfer to another 0% transfer card, often free of any fee at the end of 2 years. It takes awhile to build up, but you get an immediate benefit of only paying the minimum on your credit card bills now.

I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.

Showed my ex that one, many years ago.

She needed a small business loan. The rates were ridiculous.

She paid it off in a year.

The problem will come when the crunch happens. There are a lot of people with big debt, shuffling it from card to card. When that ends….

Gallowgate said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

The UC taper rate has entered the chat.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.

Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.

Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.

Oh, I agree.

More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.

In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.

Scarcity where people want to live.

Brownfield, brownfield…

ohnotnow said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.

I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'

RochdalePioneers said:

NeilVW said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

pigeon said:

Heathener said:

pigeon said:

Jonathan said:

Mid term.

Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.

There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.

I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.

Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.

But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.

It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.

It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.

An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.

Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.

There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.

I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.

Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.

Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.

That slogan was for 1997 wasn’t it? In 1992 we had the pain but precious little sign yet of anything working, economically.

No sir, 1992. The 1997 slogan was NEW LABOUR NEW DANGER and the infamous demon eyes

Malmesbury said:

ohnotnow said:

Driver said:

ohnotnow said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.

I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'

It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"

I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?

Less political problems than trying to tidy up.

Roll NI into Income tax. 3 bands. The resulting outcry would probably set the Channel on fire.

Or just add an adjustment to the relief tapper on the allowance for antique horse shoe stone removers.

Driver said:

ohnotnow said:

Driver said:

ohnotnow said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

The top 1% of earners are 80% male, 56% based in London and the South East and nearly 60% aged 45 to 64

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1608751117986308096?s=20&t=vaauIZw5HBQ9kacXEgNRVw

"Policy options for raising more from top incomes

Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise
income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates
suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of
taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."

If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.

It is too high.

I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.

I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.

I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'

It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"

I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?

Headlines every time they change something. Politicians' Syllogism.

Sean_F said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Can you cite evidence for these claims?

I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.

Which young people support a dictatorship?!?
Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?

There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.

One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.

Sean_F said:

MightyAlex said:

Phil said:

Phil said:

Seems like this is of relevance to our host’s interests: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1608746369505976323

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

Edit: how do I embed an image then?

Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”

Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.

Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.

OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.

Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.

Gardenwalker said:

The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.

We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.

More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.

WillG said:

Gardenwalker said:

The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.

We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.

More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.

It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.