The Tory problem – this is how Rishi is perceived – politicalbetting.com
The Tory problem – this is how Rishi is perceived – politicalbetting.com
The word cloud above was featured widely on BBC news outlets last night and sets out the challenge for the Tories as they gather in Manchester for their party conference.
Comments
-
First?0
-
Rishi Rich could end fiscal drag and help ensure people who aren't already wealthy could keep more of their own income they work for, instead of being made poorer in real terms.
Just a suggestion. Others are available.0 -
The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!1 -
At least 'useless' isn't a big feature in the cloud.0
-
Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.HYUFD said:
There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on developmentBartholomewRoberts said:
Not remotely good enough.HYUFD said:
There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local PlansBartholomewRoberts said:
And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?HYUFD said:
Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local PlanBartholomewRoberts said:
No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.Eabhal said:
reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestionBartholomewRoberts said:
Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?Eabhal said:"A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19
I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.
Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive
Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?
https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.
I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.
By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.
Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.
Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.
That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.
Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.0 -
I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.0 -
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.0 -
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!4 -
Plausible but, boy, there's a hell of a lot of water to flow before then.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.1 -
Local Plans are a big step towards zones anywayBartholomewRoberts said:
Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.HYUFD said:
There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on developmentBartholomewRoberts said:
Not remotely good enough.HYUFD said:
There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local PlansBartholomewRoberts said:
And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?HYUFD said:
Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local PlanBartholomewRoberts said:
No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.Eabhal said:
reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestionBartholomewRoberts said:
Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?Eabhal said:"A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19
I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.
Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive
Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?
https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.
I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.
By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.
Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.
Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.
That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.
Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.0 -
Yet fallingFarooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!0 -
Wow. This newspaper front page...
Lisa Nandy
@lisanandy
Welcome to the North of England Prime Minister.
We’re straight talking people up here ⬇️
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/17085593987154863036 -
As are living standards thanks to fiscal drag. Which is entirely the Government's choice, not market conditions.HYUFD said:
Yet fallingFarooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
You want credit for living standards falling less fast than they were, when if the Government made a different choice they wouldn't be falling at all? 🤔1 -
If you want to cross a road, or just get from A to B, then don't take one big step, you need to complete the journey.HYUFD said:
Local Plans are a big step towards zones anywayBartholomewRoberts said:
Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.HYUFD said:
There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on developmentBartholomewRoberts said:
Not remotely good enough.HYUFD said:
There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local PlansBartholomewRoberts said:
And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?HYUFD said:
Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local PlanBartholomewRoberts said:
No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.Eabhal said:
reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestionBartholomewRoberts said:
Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?Eabhal said:"A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19
I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.
Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive
Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?
https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.
I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.
By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.
Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.
Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.
That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.
Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.
Lets take the rest of the steps needed and go all the way to a proper zonal system and abolish asking for permission altogether if in the right zones.
Then we might actually be able to resolve the housing crisis.0 -
That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).BartholomewRoberts said:
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).
Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.1 -
Jimmy Carter was 99 today.0
-
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!1 -
Apart from that though - it was all quite positive?NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
0 -
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.0 -
Indeed. There are worse things than problems 5 years away...ohnotnow said:
Apart from that though - it was all quite positive?NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.0 -
"...99 today, 99 today, he's got the key of the door, never been 99 before..."rottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
1 -
A candle for every year on his cake might be a fire hazard so instead I hope he was given a red balloon for every year today.rottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
6 -
I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.Stuartinromford said:
That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).BartholomewRoberts said:
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).
Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.
I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.3 -
Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, passing on the costs of inflation to higher incomes is not, on the face of it, a particularly bad thing.BartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.
0 -
This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...
GB News
@GBNEWS
·
1h
'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.
Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/17085866674292245430 -
Brilliant!!!Farooq said:
I hope he outlasts Trumprottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
0 -
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.0 -
Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?
Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.
It would shift the needle.1 -
Ummm no, you have that totally backwards.Eabhal said:
Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, it's not a particularly bad thing.BartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.
Fiscal drag hurts those working for lower incomes much, much, much more than it does those on higher incomes, as stuartinromford said.
Tax free allowance is proportionately a much higher percentage of a lower wage earners income than it is a high earners income.
7.8% wage growth versus 6.8% inflation with fiscal drag ...
... If you are on a median salary (£25,971) that's a real wage decline.
... If you are on minimum wage that's an even bigger real wage decline.
... If you are earning £150k that's a real wage increase.1 -
When an organisation feels the need to put "Democratic" in their name...rottenborough said:This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...
GB News
@GBNEWS
·
1h
'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.
Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1708586667429224543
⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️3 -
They could give Mr Trump a prison sentence that he comes out of on his 100th Birthday. That sounds about right given his crimes.rottenborough said:
Brilliant!!!Farooq said:
I hope he outlasts Trumprottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
He seems to have a very transactional marriage. I get arm candy - you get a secure future.
Melania just renegotiated her pre-nup for the third time to get a big trust fund for her son it is reported, at the point of maximum leverage when he has been found liable for sexual assault and is about to be landed with $X million in the next compensation round after he defamed his victim.
Good negotiators, these Trumps. Or at least some of them.1 -
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.1 -
The CDO sound like a putative organising cell for a coup d’etat.rottenborough said:This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...
GB News
@GBNEWS
·
1h
'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.
Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/17085866674292245430 -
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
0 -
Though giving away 99 percent of their wealth would be more a vow of "doing extremely nicely, thank you."MattW said:Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?
Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.
It would shift the needle.
But yes- Rishi is what he is and there's no shame in that. And respect to him for taking time for public service.
But his enormous pile of money makes him less effective as a politician. Partly it undercuts his message, but also there are bits of British life he simply doesn't seem to comprehend.
Imagine if May had sent him to be a junior minister at Work and Pensions for a bit. Or some other spending department. Would that have filled in his worldview a bit?0 -
Hmm. Fair point.Stuartinromford said:
Though giving away 99 percent of their wealth would be more a vow of "doing extremely nicely, thank you."MattW said:Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?
Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.
It would shift the needle.
But yes- Rishi is what he is and there's no shame in that. And respect to him for taking time for public service.
But his enormous pile of money makes him less effective as a politician. Partly it undercuts his message, but also there are bits of British life he simply doesn't seem to comprehend.
Imagine if May had sent him to be a junior minister at Work and Pensions for a bit. Or some other spending department. Would that have filled in his worldview a bit?
If we take an estd 800 million combined, that makes them worth about a quarter of the Camerons at 1% left.
Make it 99.8%, perhaps. Still comfortable.1 -
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.2 -
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.0 -
Can I remind you that Ken Baker and David Waddington* predated 1993, so it goes with the territory. What about the Postman?BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.
* there is a special corner of Hell reserved for the late hanger and flogger Waddington. Prior to his political career he was Stefan Kizko's defence Barrister. A defence so appallingly bad that an innocent autistic man was barely defended3 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nhcWUTHNyIrottenborough said:This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...
GB News
@GBNEWS
·
1h
'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.
Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/17085866674292245430 -
Why is being successful a negative?0
-
0
-
It makes him less convincing[1] in depicting empathy, it makes his priorities not necessarily those of the public, and makes statements such as "we're all in this together" or "we'll get thru this together" risible.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
[1] Which in fairness to him is not the same as actually being empathetic. It's entirely possible that he just finds it difficult to show it.0 -
Surely Waddington was our worst ever Home Secretary.Mexicanpete said:
Can I remind you that Ken Baker and David Waddington* predated 1993, so it goes with the territory. What about the Postman?BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.
* there is a special corner of Hell reserved for the late hanger and flogger Waddington. Prior to his political career he was Stefan Kizko's defence Barrister. A defence so appallingly bad that an innocent autistic man was barely defended1 -
99 Luftballons is a lot of single-use plastic.BartholomewRoberts said:
A candle for every year on his cake might be a fire hazard so instead I hope he was given a red balloon for every year today.rottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
3 -
The Donald negotiates a good dealMattW said:
They could give Mr Trump a prison sentence that he comes out of on his 100th Birthday. That sounds about right given his crimes.rottenborough said:
Brilliant!!!Farooq said:
I hope he outlasts Trumprottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
He seems to have a very transactional marriage. I get arm candy - you get a secure future.
Melania just renegotiated her pre-nup for the third time to get a big trust fund for her son it is reported, at the point of maximum leverage when he has been found liable for sexual assault and is about to be landed with $X million in the next compensation round after he defamed his victim.
Good negotiators, these Trumps. Or at least some of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouG9cVhjPds0 -
The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.0 -
It's OK. We'll set them free at the break of dawn. And one by one, they'll be gone.DecrepiterJohnL said:
99 Luftballons is a lot of single-use plastic.BartholomewRoberts said:
A candle for every year on his cake might be a fire hazard so instead I hope he was given a red balloon for every year today.rottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
3 -
All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.1 -
The mysterious Panorama tonight.0
-
Hunt to unveil crackdown on benefits claimants who refuse to look for work
Chancellor to argue that it is unfair for those on benefits not trying to get a job to get the same financial support as those who do
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/01/jeremy-hunt-crackdown-benefits-claimants-look-for-work/ (£££)
The nasty party? The policy looks aimed at the membership with an eye to the leadership election, rather than being pro-business or pro-unemployed.1 -
No-one knows what it's going to be about?DecrepiterJohnL said:The mysterious Panorama tonight.
0 -
If is another Russel Brandt story I doubt if anyone will careAndy_JS said:
No-one knows what it's going to be about?DecrepiterJohnL said:The mysterious Panorama tonight.
0 -
So ?HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
And Mike isn't telling anyone to get rid of Sunak. He's just noting how poor a PM he has proved, and wondering if it might happen.
This is, after all, a betting site.0 -
Willi or won't he ?Penddu2 said:
If is another Russel Brandt story I doubt if anyone will careAndy_JS said:
No-one knows what it's going to be about?DecrepiterJohnL said:The mysterious Panorama tonight.
1 -
My pay rise (private sector) was just 3% so with fiscal drag on tax bands, and high mortgage rates kicking in, it's a heck of a squeeze.BartholomewRoberts said:
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
Fundamentally, people are much worse off and the government is simply going to run out of time.2 -
There's a lot of mythologising about the right wing press: it's just a few businesses who sell papers, most of which the retired buy.Gardenwalker said:
All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.
Older people tend to be more concerned about immigration and so that's what their stories focus on. Because it sells more papers.
1 -
All governments are essentially vulnerable to left wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since 1997.Gardenwalker said:
All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.DecrepiterJohnL said:
The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.BartholomewRoberts said:
That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,Stuartinromford said:
Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning.Gardenwalker said:
A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.rottenborough said:
Matthew Stadlen
@MatthewStadlen
·
21m
A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
Javid is perhaps a fair point.
(Or, more accurately, after Blair lifted visa restrictions in 2001.)0 -
This one is easy.MattW said:
I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.Stuartinromford said:
That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).BartholomewRoberts said:
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).
Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.
I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.
Thanks to Osborne they get round it by splitting out social care. Then charge a big uplift overall.0 -
I hope he had red balloons.rottenborough said:Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
1 -
Finland this time, surely?DecrepiterJohnL said:The mysterious Panorama tonight.
1 -
Aren't you Nottinghamshire ?MattW said:
I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.Stuartinromford said:
That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).BartholomewRoberts said:
And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.
Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).
Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.
I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.
You're aware that the council tax here is the highest for any county (ex Rutland I believe) and all surrounding counties and unitaries are
cheaper with like for like properties (Rotherham and Donny both cheaper than Bassetlaw e.g.)
I checked and it's the county element which is way out of line, not the districts.0 -
Hunt to announce a crackdown on benefits claimants. Just as well, it’s been so effective the previous dozen or so times they proposed it 🤔3
-
Hunt also announcing another significant increase in the NMW: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66978109
The target is for it to be 2/3 of the median wage by next October. In a government that overall aspires to disappointing this is a real success story in terms of making work pay and reducing income inequality.1 -
His problem is that he's so rich at a time when most people are getting poorer. Plus, the British have always hated new money. There's probably a bit of other, less savoury, stuff going on too at the margins, where saying you don't like him because he's rich provides some cover. Still, hard to see that replacing him would help. I don't see anyone obviously better, and if there were it's not obvious the party would choose them. Oh well never mind.0
-
You are right that it doesn't matter that the PM is rich. It is though a big problem for the Conservatives if this is the overriding perception of him. Think what word cloud you would *like* to see at the top of this page, the descriptions that the british public think of when they think about the PM. I bet it would contain words like "strong", "good with the economy", "leader", "government", "responsibile", "action". Can't you see the difference here? Do you not know the concept of 'dammned by faint praise'?HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
...
0 -
This has been the story of the LibDems since their formation at the end of the 80s.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.0 -
Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
0 -
Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-00119360
0 -
Why is that a negative?bondegezou said:
Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
0 -
Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.
A new survey shows three-in-four voters want the justices bound to an ethics code.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/30/supreme-court-ethics-poll-00119236
0 -
Well placed for the nomination if the criminal in chief goes down.
Haley draws Trump’s fury after strong debate showing
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4230940-haley-draws-trumps-fury-after-strong-debate-showing/
And possibly the Republican's best chance of actually winning.
0 -
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.0 -
You’re in danger of post hoc data miningBartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
Wages aren’t growing!
Oops.
Real wages aren’t growing! 😁
Fuck!
Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!
Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
1 -
Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.JosiasJessop said:
Why is that a negative?bondegezou said:
Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
0 -
There are very few seats where Labour and LDs are in competition. In the vast majority the opposition are Tories.El_Capitano said:
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
So what @NickPalmer says is no longer true (if it ever was) LD and Lab seats tend to go the same way at elections. Up together and down together.
LDs sitting on the opposition benches doesn't make them pro Tory.0 -
Marrying well has long been a strategy for success!bondegezou said:
Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.JosiasJessop said:
Why is that a negative?bondegezou said:
Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
1 -
You’re in danger of wrapping yourself in a comfortable blanket of argument while, I suspect, Bart’s position better reflects the experience of the electorate.StillWaters said:
You’re in danger of post hoc data miningBartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
Wages aren’t growing!
Oops.
Real wages aren’t growing! 😁
Fuck!
Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!
Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁3 -
Going back very many decades, the Liberals and now LibDems do better when a Conservative government is unpopular than when a Labour government is unpopular. The principal reason for this is that there are many unhappy Tories who nevertheless baulk at switching to Labour, whereas unhappy Labour voters are much more willing to switch directly to the Conservatives - as we saw in the so-called red wall seats. Yet, conversely, determined Tory voters are the more difficult to persuade to vote tactically.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.2 -
They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.El_Capitano said:
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.1 -
If Sunak’s big conference speech had a few jokes along those lines, the electorate might warm to him.Foxy said:
Marrying well has long been a strategy for success!bondegezou said:
Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.JosiasJessop said:
Why is that a negative?bondegezou said:
Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.Andy_JS said:Why is being successful a negative?
1 -
He is right though- and that's before we consider that point one isn't true for a lot of people, and that if your mortgage has gone up that blows everything else out of the water.StillWaters said:
You’re in danger of post hoc data miningBartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
Wages aren’t growing!
Oops.
Real wages aren’t growing! 😁
Fuck!
Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!
Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
A lot of people don't feel better off, even if average wage growth exceeds CPI. Rishi's problem (going back to the header) is twofold;
1 As a high flying financial spreadsheet nerd, he's liable to look at the numbers and get overexcited. (For example, energy costs may be falling, but the universal bit of energy support is going too. Right thing to do, but it leaves people a bit worse off.)
2 Because he's famous for being a squillionaire, the public don't trust him on personal finances. Doesn't matter if that's fair or not, they don't.1 -
Those struggling with the cost of living are unlikely to ascribe a fall in what they actually get paid as 'post hoc data mining'.StillWaters said:
You’re in danger of post hoc data miningBartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
Wages aren’t growing!
Oops.
Real wages aren’t growing! 😁
Fuck!
Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!
Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
Oops.1 -
On topic of course his wealth is a problem. For several reasons it diminishes and dilutes all he says on the economy which in turn makes people less inclined to vote for him.
There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).2 -
In normal years I'd agree with you.DavidL said:Hunt also announcing another significant increase in the NMW: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66978109
The target is for it to be 2/3 of the median wage by next October. In a government that overall aspires to disappointing this is a real success story in terms of making work pay and reducing income inequality.
But even now this is something the Government is running backwards on now though.
£10.42 to £11.00 - an uplift of 5.56% is less than inflation.0 -
That cant be right, she looks under 80 years of age.Nigelb said:Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-001193601 -
Yes, there's probably something in that.TOPPING said:
There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).
It's something he could addresed by painting his long term vision and plan for this country, where he wants to lead us.
But he doesn't. So that reinforces that.1 -
I don’t see where the next Charles Kennedy is coming from, though. I had hopes around Layla Moran, but she seems to have been quiet lately.Nigelb said:
They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.El_Capitano said:
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.
Of course, being the fourth party in parliament hasn’t helped the LibDems, or their potential stars.0 -
I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime
And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job
Good morning
1 -
Ho Ho.Alanbrooke said:
That cant be right, she looks under 80 years of age.Nigelb said:Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-001193600 -
That’s a fair observation, but I think @NickPalmer’s LibDem friend’s point was possibly more about lending votes under FPTP.Foxy said:
There are very few seats where Labour and LDs are in competition. In the vast majority the opposition are Tories.El_Capitano said:
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
So what @NickPalmer says is no longer true (if it ever was) LD and Lab seats tend to go the same way at elections. Up together and down together.
LDs sitting on the opposition benches doesn't make them pro Tory.
Labour and the LibDems aren’t in competition in any of the Oxfordshire seats, but nonetheless in four of the five county seats, the LibDems need votes from Labour supporters to get them over the line. (In the fifth the reverse is true.) A LibDem party continually attacking Labour makes that less likely.1 -
Increased representation in Parliament after the election ought to throw up the odd possibility.OldKingCole said:
I don’t see where the next Charles Kennedy is coming from, though. I had hopes around Layla Moran, but she seems to have been quiet lately.Nigelb said:
They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.El_Capitano said:
Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.NickPalmer said:I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.
Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.
Of course, being the fourth party in parliament hasn’t helped the LibDems, or their potential stars.
Hopefully not too odd.2 -
Nah. Assuming he has £500m people would complain it’s unfair he’d kept £5m for himselfMattW said:Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?
Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.
It would shift the needle.0 -
Did you get it yet ?Leon said:I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime
And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job
Good morning
Gave you several clues.
(Btw the sight of half empty beer glasses in the morning is quite unpleasant.
It's like being forced to breakfast at Wetherspoons.)0 -
Nigelb said:
Did you get it yet ?Leon said:I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime
And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job
Good morning
Gave you several clues.
Sorry no I’ve been scooter diving with about 50 sharks
Seriously. Absolutely sensational experience. Like riding an underwater Harley Davidson into a herd of tigers
0 -
Obviously not a high tax payer then. More like they ought to get a grip on waste and make their employees and themselves do some real work. Big pay rises and numbers cut to cover the cost and make them have to do a day's work.Eabhal said:
Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, passing on the costs of inflation to higher incomes is not, on the face of it, a particularly bad thing.BartholomewRoberts said:
Especially thanks to fiscal drag.Farooq said:
Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.Eabhal said:
And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.rottenborough said:
We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.Farooq said:
Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.HYUFD said:The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.
What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.0 -
I think that's right. Few except those on the extreme left give a damn about his wealth in itself, and they wouldn't vote for him anyway. What matters is that he hasn't set out a positive vision for making this country richer or better generally.TOPPING said:On topic of course his wealth is a problem. For several reasons it diminishes and dilutes all he says on the economy which in turn makes people less inclined to vote for him.
There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).
What may save Sunak is that Starmer seems incapable of doing it as well.1 -
Sunak clearly has a vision- see his Mais lecture from last year. Low tax, low regulation so that enterprise can thrive. The main difference with Trussism is that he wants to do it responsibly. (Which is a good thing.)Casino_Royale said:
Yes, there's probably something in that.TOPPING said:
There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).
It's something he could addresed by painting his long term vision and plan for this country, where he wants to lead us.
But he doesn't. So that reinforces that.
Rishi's problem is partly that isn't the mandate he inherited from the 2019 majority. The other is that it's not where the British people are and Sunak can't persuade for toffee.0
