Is another CON majority really out of the question? – politicalbetting.com

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

I was looking up Jack McDevitt novels and apparently there's one called Eternity Road, where a post apocalyptic society 1700 years in the future are trying to find out information about the legendary 'Roadmakers', as the magnificent roads still covering the landscape are nearly all that is left of them (us).

Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.

There's something of that also, only for Roman roads, in the Bernard Cornwell novels set in Britain (etc) in the Dark Ages, er pardon me the post-Roman early Mediaeval period.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

viewcode said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

What I really want, thouigh, are...perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).

You may be confusing the "Night's Dawn" trilogy by Peter F Hamilton with "The Night Sessions", a book by Ken Macleod. The former is zombies in space, the latter is political murders in a post-independence Scotland.

SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.

Really like all the authors being mentioned. Macleod and Hamilton especially. Alsovworthy of mention the space archaeology stuff by Jack Mcdevitt

I didn't know anybody else had read the McDevitt stuff. I liked his Priscilla Hutchins/Academy series, although the publishers never bothered to give the books a consistent size/design, so they look weird on the shelf.

viewcode said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

What I really want, thouigh, are...perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).

You may be confusing the "Night's Dawn" trilogy by Peter F Hamilton with "The Night Sessions", a book by Ken Macleod. The former is zombies in space, the latter is political murders in a post-independence Scotland.

SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.

Really like all the authors being mentioned. Macleod and Hamilton especially. Alsovworthy of mention the space archaeology stuff by Jack Mcdevitt

I didn't know anybody else had read the McDevitt stuff. I liked his Priscilla Hutchins/Academy series, although the publishers never bothered to give the books a consistent size/design, so they look weird on the shelf. Half of the ones I had were US mass-market paperbacks with the yellow edges from Ace, some were British from Voyager, then other bits and bobs. My urge to completism did not kick in for the Alex Benedict series, so I have two or three and the others I got from the library

Flatlander said:

...I thought the TV series of Crow Road was very good...

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

You realise that if you insist three times that NI isn't an explicit ring fenced pot of money, hidden at the end of a rainbow, @malcolmg instantiates?

Flatlander said:

Tres said:

Miklosvar said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.

Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".

To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.

Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.

Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.

Wedge confirmed.

MOAR CARS

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.

Robots? R. Doug Seal?

No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).

I was trying to make a funny

The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrUq2om1KU
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(TV_series)

It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.

Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.

What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).

I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.

There was a movie of Complicity and a TV series of Crow Road.

I thought the TV series of Crow Road was very good and probably worth a re-watch.

Not so convinced by Complicity (though I didn't think the book was that great either).

kle4 said:

Actually they have now, apart from the very last one, which is even worse.

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

IF that happened and I don't believe it will, doesn't that become a serious problem for Sunak? It's worth noting Opinium persistently produces higher numbers for Reform than other pollsters.

It's also worth noting Reform lost their deposits in all three recent by-elections whereas the LDs lost two but the Greens only lost one. In terms of actual votes being cast in local by-elections, the Greens are doing far better than Reform.

I'm sceptical of the 10% number being ascribed to Reform by Opinium - I'm surprised you aren't.

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

How many times will this "Labour in big trouble" poll be posted tonght I wonder?

Alphabet_Soup said:

Carnyx said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

I was looking up Jack McDevitt novels and apparently there's one called Eternity Road, where a post apocalyptic society 1700 years in the future are trying to find out information about the legendary 'Roadmakers', as the magnificent roads still covering the landscape are nearly all that is left of them (us).

Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.

There's something of that also, only for Roman roads, in the Bernard Cornwell novels set in Britain (etc) in the Dark Ages, er pardon me the post-Roman early Mediaeval period.

I've been trying to promote HS2 locally as a future cycleway but it isn't going well.

Don't you think the bridge over the river is perhaps a wee bit overengineered?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=possLll5Ub4&list=PLQHXGU97P0FLuuAHZtA8nAK3U0ZYDZy-M

Saves changing gear. I don't know if this would be of interest to geologists but the slope at Edgehill is definitely getting steeper.

Carnyx said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Carnyx said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Carnyx said:

kle4 said:

I was looking up Jack McDevitt novels and apparently there's one called Eternity Road, where a post apocalyptic society 1700 years in the future are trying to find out information about the legendary 'Roadmakers', as the magnificent roads still covering the landscape are nearly all that is left of them (us).

Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.

There's something of that also, only for Roman roads, in the Bernard Cornwell novels set in Britain (etc) in the Dark Ages, er pardon me the post-Roman early Mediaeval period.

I've been trying to promote HS2 locally as a future cycleway but it isn't going well.

Don't you think the bridge over the river is perhaps a wee bit overengineered?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=possLll5Ub4&list=PLQHXGU97P0FLuuAHZtA8nAK3U0ZYDZy-M

Saves changing gear. I don't know if this would be of interest to geologists but the slope at Edgehill is definitely getting steeper.

There's often landslipping on the Lias outcrop, so would not be surprised.

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Miklosvar said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

You realise that if you insist three times that NI isn't an explicit ring fenced pot of money, hidden at the end of a rainbow, @malcolmg instantiates?

That is a feeble point because it shows no understanding of the metaphysical status of money. If I am a trustee and I tell you I hold an explicit ring fenced pot of money on your behalf, you are going to be pretty happy if the money is in the form of UK gilts. A gilt is a bare promise to pay by the UK government (and indeed so is a £20 note). So what is the difference? How is a promise from the UK government that it will see you right if you keep up the NI subs, relevantly different from a pot of money?

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

"indirect ringfencing" when you don't actually ringfence the money that goes in and out? Itd would be an insult to that good and useful preparation of meat to call your argument mince.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%

Miklosvar said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

"indirect ringfencing" when you don't actually ringfence the money that goes in and out? Itd would be an insult to that good and useful preparation of meat to call your argument mince.

Profoundly wrong.

If you want the government to ring fence money, what form do you want the money to take?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%

RefUK are not on 10% irrespective of tonight's poll and Johnson is toxic to the electorate

Your posts are entirely consistent with your right wing views and your hopes for a right wing conservative party post GE 2024 not least the way you champion Johnson - Farage and yes Trump and indeed the absurd Rees Mogg

Well maybe Rishi and Hunt will be re elected as you hope, if not then you can be sure the Conservatives will switch back to a more populist right Johnson/Farage direction in opposition

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

But things have moved on.

The PM would have been thrown out of Parliament for three months and subjected to a by election which even with ULEZ in top gear he would have lost. Humiliation for Johnson the man and the Tory Party, on steroids.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

But things have moved on.

The PM would have been thrown out of Parliament for three months and subjected to a by election which even with ULEZ in top gear he would have lost. Humiliation for Johnson the man and the Tory Party, on steroids.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/06/it-is-assumed-boris-would-lose-a-by-election-but-would-he/

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

bigjohnowls said:

Westminster voting intention:
Sir Kid Starver fans please explain

LAB: 40% (-2)
CON: 26% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
REF: 10% (-)
GRN: 7% (-)

via @OpiniumResearch, 02 - 04 Aug

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

Sadly you are in thrall to Johnson and have not acknowledged the long term damage he has caused the conservative party made worse by Truss

The damage continues in the polls as Johnson/ Truss ratnered the brand which will not be repaired by Johnson returning

The polling evidence shows it was Truss and her awful budget with Kwarteng that ratnered the brand most. Rishi has at least done a bit better than she was doing when she resigned but is still doing worse than Boris was when he resigned

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

Sadly you are in thrall to Johnson and have not acknowledged the long term damage he has caused the conservative party made worse by Truss

The damage continues in the polls as Johnson/ Truss ratnered the brand which will not be repaired by Johnson returning

The polling evidence shows it was Truss and her awful budget with Kwarteng that ratnered the brand most. Rishi has at least done a bit better than she was doing when she resigned but is still doing worse than Boris was when he resigned

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

Sadly you are in thrall to Johnson and have not acknowledged the long term damage he has caused the conservative party made worse by Truss

The damage continues in the polls as Johnson/ Truss ratnered the brand which will not be repaired by Johnson returning

The polling evidence shows it was Truss and her awful budget with Kwarteng that ratnered the brand most. Rishi has at least done a bit better than she was doing when she resigned but is still doing worse than Boris was when he resigned

It's odd how people using 'Ratner' as a verb seem to have no understanding of Gerald Ratner and what he did to his brand.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

JSA: 25 or over up to £84.80 pw
UC: 25 or over £85.09 pw.

Hmmm...

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

JSA: 25 or over up to £84.80 pw
UC: 25 or over £85.09 pw.

Hmmm...

You can claim JSA regardless of savings however, you can only claim UC if you don't have sufficient private savings.

I do though think you should get more JSA if you have paid more in in NI, again a reason why it should be directly ringfenced

stodge said:

FF43 said:

Mexicanpete said:

FF43 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Westminster voting intention:
Sir Kid Starver fans please explain

LAB: 40% (-2)
CON: 26% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
REF: 10% (-)
GRN: 7% (-)

via @OpiniumResearch, 02 - 04 Aug

Reform have never been anywhere near 10% in recent elections yet they keep showing up at that level on opinion polls. Opinium etc please explain...

If Opinium are extrapolating the next GE as opposed to a snapshot their results look to be rubbish. The Labour figure, give or take looks OK, but Con looks very low, LD looks low while Green look high and Refuk very, very high!

If, as I suspect, the high Reform vote share is due to sampling error, I don't think we can simply allocate it to the Conservatives instead. There may be sampling errors with the Conservative share as well, but in this case recent election results are closer to the polling.

No, we can't.

When Reform supporting voters have been asked how they would vote if there were no Reform candidate in their constituency, only a quarter would vote Conservative, about a sixth would vote Labour and about half say they wouldn't vote at all.

IF we take Reform's 10% and split it out, there's probably a core of 2.5% (probably a much more realistic assessment of their actual vote) with two thirds of the rest on the Not Voting pile.

The other side to this question is what proportion of the 7% Green vote could or would shift to other parties. The by elections showed the Green vote to be more resilient and less prone to the siren sound of tactical voting than for example the Labour or Lib Dem votes. The Greens won't stand everywhere (I suspect) and where they aren't standing how much of their vote is transferrable to Labour or the LDs?

I'd contend any "advantage" Reform provides to the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate would be negated by Green voters going to Labour or the LDs in the absence of a Green candidate.

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

JSA: 25 or over up to £84.80 pw
UC: 25 or over £85.09 pw.

Hmmm...

You can claim JSA regardless of savings however, you can only claim UC if you don't have sufficient private savings.

I do though think you should get more JSA if you have paid more in in NI, again a reason why it should be directly ringfenced

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%

RefUK are not on 10% irrespective of tonight's poll and Johnson is toxic to the electorate

Your posts are entirely consistent with your right wing views and your hopes for a right wing conservative party post GE 2024 not least the way you champion Johnson - Farage and yes Trump and indeed the absurd Rees Mogg

Well maybe Rishi and Hunt will be re elected as you hope, if not then you can be sure the Conservatives will switch back to a more populist right Johnson/Farage direction in opposition

Significant you do not say as you hope, and you just confirm my comments tonight

And post GE 24 anything could happen to the conservative party hopefully after many right wingers are thrown out by the electorate

Parties which lose power generally move away from the centre, as Labour did after 1979 with Foot, the Tories did after 1997 with Hague and IDS and Labour did after 2010 with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. A Sunak and Hunt defeat would also see the Conservatives shift right in opposition

That is not a given

Labour recognised how toxic Corbyn was and has moved to the centre

The toxicity of Johnson will be there post GE24, and it is also far from certain how many right wingers will be re-elected

There are enough right wing Conservatives with very safe seats to make them a force in the post GE party. That's before considering the effect of retirements and new selections. Really it boils down to two questions;

1 When will the party membership be willing to consider a non-headbanger as leader? It will happen eventually, but it's fairly unlikely to be in Spring 2025.

2 How much Conservative Party will be left at that point?

The Conservatives membership haven't had the chance to pick a proper 'headbanger' yet, even Truss.

When they get the chance to elect Jacob Rees Mogg as Leader of the Opposition then they will have had the same chance Labour members had when they picked Corbyn to pick a pure true believer!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Off off topic, Just received an email from John Lewis that my item has been despatched. Some poor devil is hard at work at 9.30 on a Saturday night despatching my item. What a time to be alive.

Amazon work 24/7 all year dispatching items

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

Sadly you are in thrall to Johnson and have not acknowledged the long term damage he has caused the conservative party made worse by Truss

The damage continues in the polls as Johnson/ Truss ratnered the brand which will not be repaired by Johnson returning

The polling evidence shows it was Truss and her awful budget with Kwarteng that ratnered the brand most. Rishi has at least done a bit better than she was doing when she resigned but is still doing worse than Boris was when he resigned

It's odd how people using 'Ratner' as a verb seem to have no understanding of Gerald Ratner and what he did to his brand.

I take it you were 8 in 1991? I, sadly, was not.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%

RefUK are not on 10% irrespective of tonight's poll and Johnson is toxic to the electorate

Your posts are entirely consistent with your right wing views and your hopes for a right wing conservative party post GE 2024 not least the way you champion Johnson - Farage and yes Trump and indeed the absurd Rees Mogg

Well maybe Rishi and Hunt will be re elected as you hope, if not then you can be sure the Conservatives will switch back to a more populist right Johnson/Farage direction in opposition

Significant you do not say as you hope, and you just confirm my comments tonight

And post GE 24 anything could happen to the conservative party hopefully after many right wingers are thrown out by the electorate

Parties which lose power generally move away from the centre, as Labour did after 1979 with Foot, the Tories did after 1997 with Hague and IDS and Labour did after 2010 with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. A Sunak and Hunt defeat would also see the Conservatives shift right in opposition

That is not a given

Labour recognised how toxic Corbyn was and has moved to the centre

The toxicity of Johnson will be there post GE24, and it is also far from certain how many right wingers will be re-elected

Labour only moved to Starmer after 10 years in opposition and 3 consecutive general election defeats under Ed Miliband and Corbyn.

If Sunak and Hunt lose their wing of the party will be blamed for the defeat and the party will move right in response.

Though if the economy is poor under a Starmer government that may not stop the Tories getting poll leads, even Foot from 1980-81 and Ed Miliband had poll leads when the economy wasn't doing that well

Nonsense

It took the catastrophic result for labour in 2019 for labour and Starmer to move away from Corbynite politics and to the centre

You are so blinkered

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

TimS said:

another_richard said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Cameron wasn't small-state.

Very few politicians are.

They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.

In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.

So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.

That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.

And that's hard, very hard.

Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.

And politicians encourage them to do so.

The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.

Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.

Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.

But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.

Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.

Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.

If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.

It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.

To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.

Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance

But it's not really "insurance", is NI?

Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.

Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.

Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.

Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.

Rubbish!

The NI contributions paid go to the Treasury and you can now only claim JSA from the Treasury if you have paid contrubutions in.

It may not be directly ringfenced but there is now a clear link in unemployment benefits so that you can only claim JSA if you have paid in otherwise you have to claim UC.

We could go further like most of Europe and North America and have healthcare for most ringfenced from social insurance payments and of course the state pension should be again ringfenced based on NI payments too, after all you can only claim it with NI payments or credits

But if it was ringfenced the amounts in and out would correspoind = insurance system. But it's not. So away and play with your little toy Tories.

And I said it should be directly ringfenced, as should the state pension and we could even do it for some healthcare too

But it's not, so you were talking nonsense.

I recommend these toy Tories to play with:

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/kids/characters/minifigures/businessman-94f1687168f34aaa98850d3ace9f8922

Complete with suitcase to take their grift home.

No I am not. If you haven't made sufficient NI contributions then you can't claim a penny of JSA!

It is therefore already indirectly fingfenced for JSA and should be directly ringfenced for it too

JSA: 25 or over up to £84.80 pw
UC: 25 or over £85.09 pw.

Hmmm...

You can claim JSA regardless of savings however, you can only claim UC if you don't have sufficient private savings.

I do though think you should get more JSA if you have paid more in in NI, again a reason why it should be directly ringfenced

... for 182 days. Most people in this situation do not of course have >£6,000 savings so it makes no difference whatsoever.

I had more savings than that and claimed JSA when I was out of work briefly, I would not have been eligible for UC

You're not most people.

Carnyx said:

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Lab 40%
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192

ReformUK now tied with the LDs for third quite significant. Highest vote for a party right of the Conservatives on that poll since the 12% UKIP got in 2015. If that marked a trend could Farage be tempted to return?

Good evening

Why don't you admit it

You really want to see a Johnson - Farage - Trump triumvirate

No but if Boris was Tory leader still I suspect the Conservatives would be at least over 30% and RefUK would not be on 10%.

Rishi has to squeeze that RefUK vote to make the next election competitive, even if the Labour vote is falling back a little

More like Refuk on 30, Con on 10. Do you not realise how detested Johnson is at the moment? That might change but the Partygate lying is still raw.

Even at the heart of Partygate allegations the Tories were polling 30-35% not the 26% they are on tonight!

The Conservatives under Johnson got 30% NEV in his final local elections in May 2022, in Rishi's first local elections this year however the Tories got just 26% NEV

Sadly you are in thrall to Johnson and have not acknowledged the long term damage he has caused the conservative party made worse by Truss

The damage continues in the polls as Johnson/ Truss ratnered the brand which will not be repaired by Johnson returning

The polling evidence shows it was Truss and her awful budget with Kwarteng that ratnered the brand most. Rishi has at least done a bit better than she was doing when she resigned but is still doing worse than Boris was when he resigned

It's odd how people using 'Ratner' as a verb seem to have no understanding of Gerald Ratner and what he did to his brand.

I take it you were 8 in 1991? I, sadly, was not.

LG Is, however, entirely correct.

I recall well how Mr Ratner did in his brand by saying it was cheap crap, cost less than a M&S prawn sandwich.

You certainly can't accuse Ms Truss and Mr Kamikwazi of selling *cheap* crap.