I saw UKIP has elected a new leader, one Lois Perry earlier this month. No idea which seat she's standing in (if she even stands) yet.
I'm surprised UKIP are still going. What little I learned last night when I was glancing through the parties is that they've fallen totally into infighting and factionalism, along with some accusations of certain party members favouring other party members whilst they were dating them.
They should just pack up and either join Reform or go home.
Neil Hamilton has packed it in then? He must have lasted a lot longer than most other UKIP leaders have in the post-Farage era.
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
They've just been relegated to the Northern Premier West. Pedantically. Otherwise. Yeah makes absolute sense. Doubtless a useful bit of publicity and income for facilities which wouldn't otherwise be used much for the next three months. So win-win.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Yes, I was the one who called you out on that.
No you were not, I called you out on it. I've been banging on about it for years as part of why we need more construction.
Something you weasel against, again today you were bringing up the fallacy by talking just about population growth and omitting demographics.
Scotland's population is aging faster than England's. So no you can not just compare population growth and say that you don't need construction, you do.
The total number of dwellings in Scotland has grown by 8%. The population by 3%. Households by 6%.
Woops.
Meaningless bullshit statistics for reasons you've been called out on by numerous people time and again.
Thick as two short planks if it's not sank in yer.
That's not very nice.
Sorry.
Neither is you completely disregarding everything everyone else says to you time and again then going "Woops". 🤷♂️
Could you provide PB with the correct figures?
I'm going for a 5k so back in 19 minutes.
Of course not and this by Malmesbury is part of why you're totally wrong:
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
Why do you think it will be so large? Can you explain your workings?
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I found Boris quitting his seat to be pretty strange, since there was a chance he might win a recall election which would be a real thumb in the eye for the party leadership abandoning him, and enable him to quickly stake a claim to come back at some point. That he quit suggested to me he thought the party was doomed and he didn't want to go down with them at the next GE.
But if he is still interested in the game there's surely a seat that would have him, and he'd have influence even if not leadership as one of the surviving MPs with any experience after this election.
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
There’s a good meeting room at Witham Town FC. Although I don’t think Labour are that optimistic.
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
Not sure that holds for Man Utd fans, Surrey is a Tory/LD fight, not safe Labour.
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
He might well have done, but then part of me wonders what would have happened if inflation hadn't been below 3% this month, but fell below 3% at the end of June. Would he really have called an election for Thursday 1st August? Would he have been happy getting zero votes for wrecking everyone's summer holiday?
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%.
If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
Why do you think it will be so large? Can you explain your workings?
I can Horse, I can. I believe Labour will get about 40, maybe 39 and the Tories high 20s to perhaps 1997 level if they get the vote out. Depending on tactical voting is where we fall in the range. I think with new boundaries there will be slightly less effective tactical voting and the LDs will not have the raw numbers to assist Labour overly much
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I think there is a high chance that Reform will not get candidates in every seat, and a small chance that the Tories might find a few missing too.
UKIP got as high as 624 candidates in 2015, only 7 behind Labour and the LDs, which would be a tough level to meet. That was down to 378 in 2017, and Brexit had 275 in 2019 and 2% of the vote
Doubling candidates looks very achievable, as does doubling or tipling the voteshare, even if we assume for sake of argument Tories will squeeze them from their low to mid teens share in some polls, and that will be devastating for the Tories.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%. If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
This feels a bit like what I used to say prior to 2019 that the Labour voters would come back. They never did.
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
He might well have done, but then part of me wonders what would have happened if inflation hadn't been below 3% this month, but fell below 3% at the end of June. Would he really have called an election for Thursday 1st August? Would he have been happy getting zero votes for wrecking everyone's summer holiday?
But a bad plan anyway. Mathematically loads of people believe that lower inflation=prices falling; in their hearts they know they are poorer than they either were or want to be.
(They are also spotting in Vennells and co that the super high paid are no more adequate than they are.)
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I think there is a high chance that Reform will not get candidates in every seat, and a small chance that the Tories might find a few missing too.
The Tories will likely have a few paper candidates from the Councillor and activist base that can be chucked in at the last second in an emergency
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
I concluded much the same. I think he's been waiting for that number. If it had happened in April he'd have gone then.
It is daft to be triggered by an inflation rate because voters in shops across the land are weighing up the pound in their pocket against the number on the shelf, and not sitting at home and watching the news to see if it will be Heinz or own-brand ketchup this week. And the BoE MPC can't react to fallen inflation because they are in purdah because Rishi called the election.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%. If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
This feels a bit like what I used to say prior to 2019 that the Labour voters would come back. They never did.
They went from mid to high 20s at campaign outset to 33% so some did indeed come back Edit - hence you could argue low to mid 20s and the blues come back to my 29% or so (in a very very basic read across)
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
Not sure that holds for Man Utd fans, Surrey is a Tory/LD fight, not safe Labour.
If SKS wants a head to head with Corbyn Arsenal have a handy stadium right on the spot, though of course it sends out a subliminal message that you only ever come second.
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
The Labour leader has made a habit of hosting campaign visits at lower league football clubs.
He was at Gillingham Football Club in Kent on day one of campaigning earlier this week. Today we’ve been at Stafford Rangers FC, who are in the Northern Premier League, Premier Division.
It’s a very deliberate campaign decision, a senior Labour figure tells me.
There are mundane practical reasons – it’s a ready-made venue with seating for an event. Visually it’s also very clear where you are (usually because there’s a whopping great sign in the background – in this case ‘Stafford Rangers’.) So when local people see the pictures on TV, they know Starmer has been in their patch.
But the party is also trying to promote the image of Sir Keir Starmer as a football-loving, ordinary bloke.
And the reason it’s often lower league clubs? Mainly, the senior Labour source tells me, it’s because the bigger premier league clubs are in cities where Labour are already confident they will win.
Their campaign is focused on smaller towns – parliamentary seats like Stafford that they need to take off the Conservatives in order to win a majority.
Not sure that holds for Man Utd fans, Surrey is a Tory/LD fight, not safe Labour.
If SKS wants a head to head with Corbyn Arsenal have a handy stadium right on the spot, though of course it sends out a subliminal message that you only ever come second.
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
They'd be delighted. If they can get Starmer to 50 and under they'll be cock a hoop, and Starmer would have a potentially tricky 5 years ahead
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
I saw some polling the other day that said Labour would win a majority with a 5 point lead because of how efficient their vote is. I am sceptical of it myself but ultimately it won't be important what the margin is, it will be if Labour wins a majority.
If Labour wins a majority, it will be hailed as a success and Keir Starmer will feel triumphant. It won't last but he'll probably get a polling boost post the election.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Having just stayed in Edinburgh last week (Scottish Bookselling Conference) if you are happy to stay in what I call 'Bot Hotels' these can be cheap: everything automated, keypads, app-based and largely online and you never see anyone.
Cold, soulless. Not sure it's a future I necessarily want to think is the future. But was cheap
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
I saw some polling the other day that said Labour would win a majority with a 5 point lead because of how efficient their vote is. I am sceptical of it myself but ultimately it won't be important what the margin is, it will be if Labour wins a majority.
If Labour wins a majority, it will be hailed as a success and Keir Starmer will feel triumphant. It won't last but he'll probably get a polling boost post the election.
The trouble with efficient votes is they aren't until they're cast. There's an assumption of efficiency that may not emerge. To be comfortable 8 points lead I think. Triple figure majority comfort figure 13 point lead but likely at 11. And yes, the first few months will see a significant polling bounce just like Boz had early 2020.
Simon Hoare appear not to relish a tactical vote challenge:
As Labour came 2nd in 2017 you’d like to think someone would like to stand? I have always loathed tactical carve ups by political parties. All voters deserve the full options of candidates to support
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
I saw some polling the other day that said Labour would win a majority with a 5 point lead because of how efficient their vote is. I am sceptical of it myself but ultimately it won't be important what the margin is, it will be if Labour wins a majority.
If Labour wins a majority, it will be hailed as a success and Keir Starmer will feel triumphant. It won't last but he'll probably get a polling boost post the election.
Scotland makes the crucial contribution to Labour vote efficiency.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Nope I don’t have a gun to my head or anything, it just seems that female actors and comedians nowadays often prefer not to be referred to with a gendered term. So I try and be polite and respect that - and if that’s woke well then I’m with Kathy Burke.
But how should you refer to a male seamstress? Seammaster? That’s an expensive dive watch worn by insecure people with fragile egos.
Oh how complicated modern mores are!
Some don't like the word actress, some actively prefer it. I really can't think why you'd use a phrase you find awkward and confusing because you're concerned about some future scenario where you may upset Emma Thomson.
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Having just stayed in Edinburgh last week (Scottish Bookselling Conference) if you are happy to stay in what I call 'Bot Hotels' these can be cheap: everything automated, keypads, app-based and largely online and you never see anyone.
Cold, soulless. Not sure it's a future I necessarily want to think is the future. But was cheap
You're better off staying out of town. There's a serviceable hotel in Dreghorn, which is convenient if you're driving but less so is you've come by train. The advantage is that if you've got some spare time, you're already basically into the Pentlands. You can slip a pair of boots on, cross the ring road, and head up the hills for a very pleasant walk.
That said, if budgets are limited and you want or need to be within a few hundred metres of the castle, easyHotel is a good option. I expect it'll be noisy but some people are ok with that.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Nope I don’t have a gun to my head or anything, it just seems that female actors and comedians nowadays often prefer not to be referred to with a gendered term. So I try and be polite and respect that - and if that’s woke well then I’m with Kathy Burke.
But how should you refer to a male seamstress? Seammaster? That’s an expensive dive watch worn by insecure people with fragile egos.
Oh how complicated modern mores are!
Some don't like the word actress, some actively prefer it. I really can't think why you'd use a phrase you find awkward and confusing because you're concerned about some future scenario where you may upset Emma Thomson.
I think the oscars still refer to best actor and actress - They are pretty woke so if they dont feel the need then why change it
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
I concluded much the same. I think he's been waiting for that number. If it had happened in April he'd have gone then.
It is daft to be triggered by an inflation rate because voters in shops across the land are weighing up the pound in their pocket against the number on the shelf, and not sitting at home and watching the news to see if it will be Heinz or own-brand ketchup this week. And the BoE MPC can't react to fallen inflation because they are in purdah because Rishi called the election.
Also, while high inflation makes people feel poor immediately, low inflation only makes people feel rich very gradually. Inflation falling <> prices falling. It seems astonishing that Rishi or Conservative strategists would fail to grasp this, but that seems to be the way of it.
(They are also spotting in Vennells and co that the super high paid are no more adequate than they are.)
I sometimes wonder that.
Could I be Prime Minister? Yeah, why not. Would I be good at it? Probably not. Would I be better than the last three holders of the office however? Quite possibly.
Suddenly makes you think that almost anyone could do the job.......
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Having just stayed in Edinburgh last week (Scottish Bookselling Conference) if you are happy to stay in what I call 'Bot Hotels' these can be cheap: everything automated, keypads, app-based and largely online and you never see anyone.
Cold, soulless. Not sure it's a future I necessarily want to think is the future. But was cheap
What we need is the Scottish Bookselling Conference to happen in Inverclyde rather than Edinburgh.
Everything is gravitating towards these cities on the east coast. So, despite a stagnant population and the capital a building site, you have booksellers fighting it out with the rest of the population for inadequate accomodation.
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
I concluded much the same. I think he's been waiting for that number. If it had happened in April he'd have gone then.
It is daft to be triggered by an inflation rate because voters in shops across the land are weighing up the pound in their pocket against the number on the shelf, and not sitting at home and watching the news to see if it will be Heinz or own-brand ketchup this week. And the BoE MPC can't react to fallen inflation because they are in purdah because Rishi called the election.
Also, while high inflation makes people feel poor immediately, low inflation only makes people feel rich very gradually. Inflation falling <> prices falling. It seems astonishing that Rishi or Conservative strategists would fail to grasp this, but that seems to be the way of it.
Yeah, Once inflation has decimated someone's earnings and savings it can take months or years to feel better off.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%.
If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
This could prove to be true of course but it relies on an assumption that 2019 Tory voters were in any way wedded to the party. I suspect for many it was a vote to 'get Brexit done' and/or pro-Johnson and/or anti-Corbyn.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I think there is a high chance that Reform will not get candidates in every seat, and a small chance that the Tories might find a few missing too.
No party runs in every seat...... and hasn't for quite some time.
(They are also spotting in Vennells and co that the super high paid are no more adequate than they are.)
I sometimes wonder that.
Could I be Prime Minister? Yeah, why not. Would I be good at it? Probably not. Would I be better than the last three holders of the office however? Quite possibly.
Suddenly makes you think that almost anyone could do the job.......
Which is true - i mean look at Biden in the USA - Trouble is the act of getting there - most dont have anywhere near the drive or confidence or lack of imposter syndrome . Its a bit like moaning cos a business idea you thought of is taken up by somebody else - Its not the idea its the drive and dedication
(They are also spotting in Vennells and co that the super high paid are no more adequate than they are.)
I sometimes wonder that.
Could I be Prime Minister? Yeah, why not. Would I be good at it? Probably not. Would I be better than the last three holders of the office however? Quite possibly.
Suddenly makes you think that almost anyone could do the job.......
Many of the high paid are just expert blaggers nothing more. Certainly makes the case for forcible redistribution of wealth.
Totally apropos of nothing, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law’s mate’s daughter is an actor (it still feels weird to me that we don’t call people actresses or comediennes anymore, it’s an age thing I think), she moved to the States and is now married to Henry Winkler’s son.
This is like the time I found out a few years ago my sister has a third nipple. Why does nobody tell me these things?
Why don't you call them actresses - is somebody stopping you?
Nope I don’t have a gun to my head or anything, it just seems that female actors and comedians nowadays often prefer not to be referred to with a gendered term. So I try and be polite and respect that - and if that’s woke well then I’m with Kathy Burke.
But how should you refer to a male seamstress? Seammaster? That’s an expensive dive watch worn by insecure people with fragile egos.
Oh how complicated modern mores are!
Some don't like the word actress, some actively prefer it. I really can't think why you'd use a phrase you find awkward and confusing because you're concerned about some future scenario where you may upset Emma Thomson.
I think the oscars still refer to best actor and actress - They are pretty woke so if they dont feel the need then why change it
I suspect they would get rid of it, but they'd then have to insist on at least equal numbers of men and women being nominated each year to avoid uproar, making the exercise fairly pointless.
🔴I feel slightly dishonest announcing all these Labour candidates for hopeless seats, as many of them aren't serious. Many Labour candidates in seats roughly beyond target 200 have had to sign contracts pledging to campaign in more promising seats most of the time.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Isn't it rather a myth that England going out of the World Cup in 1970 swung the election?
Wasn't it the gloomy economic news of rising inflation and unemployment, fear of a further devaluation and a particularly poor set of trade figures a few days before the GE?
Yes, I think hardly anyone bases their vote on the results of football matches.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock was a fighter politician (they were quite common in his time - Thatcher , Hatton ,Livingstone ,Tebbitt etc) - he gave as good as he got and is quite admired by across society (like the others mentioned ) because they seemed more genuine and able to stand up for themselves . Even though I still dont get the full logic of his militant speech , it was brave to do that at his party conference . Now politicians are so soft establishment (from all parties) and weak that I cannot think of a single "fighter" in modern politics except maybe Galloway (which is maybe he was elected recently)
Why are the Tories talking about unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy? Do they think it’s an electoral win to resurrect Trussonomics? They should steer well clear from bold taxation moves. It undermines the core offer of Sunak and Hunt.
Such a confusing message.
£100k cliffedge is easy to change without costing anything. You can just change thresholds.
Bad optics. They should steer well clear.
Fuck the optics. The £100k cliffedge is a disaster that has serious real-world economic and productivity impacts.
The fact that everything in politics is about "optics" is one of our biggest problems.
Real leaders lead.
This was a party political broadcast by the Liz Truss Party.
Again, a silly little remark trying to play it for laughs rather than engage in the substance.
Even Nick Palmer ex-MP - who is pretty left-wing, let's remember - agrees this is an issue and regrets his part in bringing it in. Which was also about "optics".
Truss didn't propose to remove the 100k tax trap. It's one of the biggest marks against her 6 weeks in office, because she was also going for "optics" but of a different kind.
Politics is all about priorities and context. Making a feature of tax thresholds for the well off (however poorly designed) is not good politics today. It’s the sort of thing you do in budgets not election campaigns. You have to care about how policies are interpreted. As soon as you say 100k you’re on the defensive having to explain it.
It should be a priority. We elect our politicians to understand public opinion and then to lead it in the best interests of the country. Lots of people are now deliberately choosing jobs or working hours to avoid this tax-trap and it's sapping our productivity as a result. Even I've thought about giving up at times as I'm right in the middle of it.
On the "well-off" point here's one for you: the 2009 budget introduced the 100k cliff edge from April 2010, just before that election. That's 100k in 2010 pounds.
Do you know what that's worth today, inflation-adjusted for 2024?
£65,000.
A figure that most voters would dream of, that’s your political problem. Take a look at the household income distribution if you do not believe me.
Somewhere along the line conservatives forgot how to do politics. You need people to vote for you.
No, a level that many civil servants, GPs, consultants, head teachers, solicitors, businessmen and professionals now easily reach - they'd laugh at you calling them super-rich. You are hitting the successful middle-class.
But, your comment is very revealing.
It's very clear that under a Labour government your taxes will only be going in one direction: up.
Check out where a salary of 100k puts you on the income distribution. You’ll be surprised.
Now a salary of 65k.
Labour = taxes up
I don't think people have really figured out just how much the inflation of the past 3 years has effected things.
I was talking to an academic at a top university the other day and they said they are really struggling to get PhD students. I said Brexit? And he said, a bit, but stipend is the biggest problem. Its £18.5k outside of London. They said when they did their PhD their stipend in todays money would be £27k. Up until 3 years ago, yes stipends had fallen behind, I think they said it would have been about £20k in 2018 money, but equivalent of £7k inflated away.
Same with post-docs, their money is £20k below what it used to be in real times from 20 years ago.
Yes, totally agree. Allowances are sticky and take a long time to catch-up.
I struggle to find compliant hotels within my company's expenses policy when I travel for work, now, except Travelodges etc.
Net effect? I can't find staff who are willing to travel to do client work.
Yes hotels prices are crazy these days. Pre-pandemic, £100-150 could get your a half decent room in most places. Now we are talking £200-300 easy. I think I did £1000 in expenses on a 2 night trip overseas trip to Europe and it was literally just working and sleeping with some quick stops for pretty normal meals inbetween.
Being self employed my overnights come out of what I earn. Up until COVID I could get a late B&B package at a decent hotel ( I used Eastwood Hall for my Nottingham and Derby trips) for less than fifty quid. Prices are such that an overnight to the East Midlands is better served coming home and starting early the following day. Fifty quid in diesel being cheaper than £150 plus for an overnight stop.
I have just paid £460 for 4 nights in really awful accommodation in Glasgow, not even any hot water. I am getting £320 back from my employer but that still leaves me quite significantly out of pocket. Which, if I had been living it up would be fair enough but even basic accommodation is no longer within the allowances.
Back in the day, for £500 could buy your half of Glasgow....
Has it really got that expensive even in Glasgow? I haven't been for about 10 years, but I stayed in Raddison Blu and I don't think it cost me that for a week.
Yes, as others have pointed out hotel accommodation has had much higher inflation than most things since Covid. Getting even a modest hotel in Edinburgh room only for less than £150 a night is getting increasingly hard.
Not sure what is driving this. Minimum wage increases will have played a part but I begin to suspect some cartel activity.
Isn't it just a reflection of what's happened to land and property prices in general?
Free the market and house prices and hotel prices would come down, as construction happens, but if you spend decades banning construction in an era of growing population and growing numbers of households* then property prices surge and if property is expensive it makes not just owning a home or renting a home expensive it makes letting one so too.
Why let a room to someone for cheap for a night when you can let it to someone for a high rent for months instead?
* Demographics mean there's more singles or couples living alone than ever before as we have more old people than ever before whose children (and often grandchildren) live in their own home.
Scotland - Our population grew by only 2.7% over the last 10 years. Despite this, our house prices have actually increased faster than they have in England.
Edinburgh is different with massive pressure from students and tourists. There is an enormous amount of contruction going on (including the infamous Turd Hotel - a stunning example of no planning restrictions whatsoever).
A crackdown on STLs (there were 10,000 airbnbs operating at one point) is probably the reason why hotel bed prices have gone up. As you say, the market will likely respond with more hotels - assuming it's a free one.
Your idea that letting a room long term is more attractive than short term is spectacularly wrong in Edinburgh.
Again repeating the fallacy that population change is all that matters even after the fallacy was called out. 🙄
How has Scotland's demographics changed over that time?
Having just stayed in Edinburgh last week (Scottish Bookselling Conference) if you are happy to stay in what I call 'Bot Hotels' these can be cheap: everything automated, keypads, app-based and largely online and you never see anyone.
Cold, soulless. Not sure it's a future I necessarily want to think is the future. But was cheap
Yes I’ve stayed in a couple of these now. France and then Italy. I like them - soothing and cheap
You wouldn’t want them all the time but if you’re doing some hard travel they are weirdly relaxing
I saw UKIP has elected a new leader, one Lois Perry earlier this month. No idea which seat she's standing in (if she even stands) yet.
I'm surprised UKIP are still going. What little I learned last night when I was glancing through the parties is that they've fallen totally into infighting and factionalism, along with some accusations of certain party members favouring other party members whilst they were dating them.
They should just pack up and either join Reform or go home.
Isn't it rather a myth that England going out of the World Cup in 1970 swung the election?
Wasn't it the gloomy economic news of rising inflation and unemployment, fear of a further devaluation and a particularly poor set of trade figures a few days before the GE?
Yes, I think hardly anyone bases their vote on the results of football matches.
But people do base their vote on the feelgood factor, and winning or losing World Cups makes people feel good or bad. It is an indirect effect.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock was a fighter politician (they were quite common in his time - Thatcher , Hatton ,Livingstone ,Tebbitt etc) - he gave as good as he got and is quite admired by across society (like the others mentioned ) because they seemed more genuine and able to stand up for themselves . Even though I still dont get the full logic of his militant speech , it was brave to do that at his party conference . Now politicians are so soft establishment (from all parties) and weak that I cannot think of a single "fighter" in modern politics except maybe Galloway (which is maybe he was elected recently)
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
1992 election was the strangest in modern times. We had been in a shocking recession yet Major scraped home. 1992 and 2017 have been the most exciting recent election nights.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Look at how Denmark voted in the 1992 eu referendum after winning the European championships against Germany... they were in a rush of nationalistic fervor
Fake news.
The Danish referendum was on the 2nd of June 1992.
Denmark beat Germany in the final of Euro 92 on the 26th of June 1992.
That's a really impressive rejoinder.
Nevertheless, Denmark was only confirmed as one of the eight(!) teams in the finals on 31 May 1992 replacing civil war torn Yugoslavia. Plenty reason to be celebrating national pride.
With several recent polls showing similar, I still find it mad that Labour 46-48% is trading at 8/1 on Betfair Exchange.
If a "breaks all the established rules" type landslide result is on the cards, that seems like a value bet compared to say, betting on Cons getting 50-100 seats, at 4.2 on Betfair. Especially since the Tories could actually win a lot more seats if the Reform vote comes home, with Labour still getting in the high 40s in overall vote share.
Told Andy Street seriously weighing up bid to head to Westminster and become an MP after his very close West Mids loss. Likely to be Solihull.
Friends say he's still weighing it up...
A spokesperson for Andy Street said: “Following the West Midlands Mayoral election result earlier this month, Andy is taking some time away to consider and assess his options before deciding on his next move.”
He'd walk Solihull. If he wants to shape Conservatism he should go for it.
Candidates have to be signed, sealed and delivered by 7/6 so he has a fortnight from yesterday to weigh up his options, but in practice less because he (and Boris?) will want to grab a safe seat.
I thought that even Boris thought that his Parliamentary ship had sailed. I suspect both the Tories and Reform are doing some arm-twisting behind the scenes as far as candidates are concerned.
I think there is a high chance that Reform will not get candidates in every seat, and a small chance that the Tories might find a few missing too.
No party runs in every seat...... and hasn't for quite some time.
(Cough Northern Ireland, cough).
In 2015, the Conservatives stood in 647 seats, so everywhere except against the Speaker and 2 seats in NI.
In 2010, they were in a formal alliance with the UUP and that alliance stood in 648 seats.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband... None of whom were privately educated, just sayin'.
I saw UKIP has elected a new leader, one Lois Perry earlier this month. No idea which seat she's standing in (if she even stands) yet.
I'm surprised UKIP are still going. What little I learned last night when I was glancing through the parties is that they've fallen totally into infighting and factionalism, along with some accusations of certain party members favouring other party members whilst they were dating them.
They should just pack up and either join Reform or go home.
With several recent polls showing similar, I still find it mad that Labour 46-48% is trading at 8/1 on Betfair Exchange.
If a "breaks all the established rules" type landslide result is on the cards, that seems like a value bet compared to say, betting on Cons getting 50-100 seats, at 4.2 on Betfair. Especially since the Tories could actually win a lot more seats if the Reform vote comes home, with Labour still getting in the high 40s in overall vote share.
Cons getting 50-100 seats is a much broader band than Labour 46-48%.
Misses the interesting point that the original script had everything happening on board an WW2 American bomber returning from a raid on Germany. Changed to a spaceship after Star Wars was a big hit
One thing that a couple of people here miss is the impact of demographics on the need for construction.
I've seen time and again people make the fallacy that as Scotland's population is relatively stable it shouldn't need much construction.
That's only the case if the demographics are stable, they're not.
Children live with their parents. Parents of children live with their children. (Great-)Grandparents tend to live on their own.
If the population is stable but the demographics mean we now have fewer children and more elderly, then that means we need more houses.
Even in Scotland though the population is not stable, there is growth, but there is also quite considerable demographic change so there needs to be construction to keep up.
There is also the effect of shortages of housing on “household formation”.
Household is used to mean any number of people living in a nominal housing unit. So, if you have people living in an impromptu HMO, that’s one household. But they all are trying to get a place of their own.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Again its the old uk class system. None of those went to private school and were all with the possible exception of miliband from fairly modest backgrounds. The problem is these guys didnt have old public school pals in positions of power to cover for them.
If Labour (assuming they win) don't want a complete collapse of the £44b pa university sector in the short term , and I mean immediately feed are going to have to rise. They can then work out their funding model and recompense students subject to this rise in fees accordingly. The current crisis is an existential threat to even Russell Group establishments. Cardiff for example have had to recently sell real estate to keep a float
This isn't a problem for the Tories as they can allow the sector to die except for their preferred elite universities.
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
I saw some polling the other day that said Labour would win a majority with a 5 point lead because of how efficient their vote is. I am sceptical of it myself but ultimately it won't be important what the margin is, it will be if Labour wins a majority.
If Labour wins a majority, it will be hailed as a success and Keir Starmer will feel triumphant. It won't last but he'll probably get a polling boost post the election.
Scotland makes the crucial contribution to Labour vote efficiency.
Before the total collapse Tory support it was largely presumed Labour could find it hard to get over the line of a majority if they could not recover in Scotland. Having seemingly done so, it firstly makes a hung result much more unlikely than it already was at this point, but makes the prospect of a huge win that much more likely.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock was a fighter politician (they were quite common in his time - Thatcher , Hatton ,Livingstone ,Tebbitt etc) - he gave as good as he got and is quite admired by across society (like the others mentioned ) because they seemed more genuine and able to stand up for themselves . Even though I still dont get the full logic of his militant speech , it was brave to do that at his party conference . Now politicians are so soft establishment (from all parties) and weak that I cannot think of a single "fighter" in modern politics except maybe Galloway (which is maybe he was elected recently)
Boris. He's pretty scrappy. The joust is probably where he's most effective. He was certainly shit at actually governing but that's a different question.
Seems like it was fake news Rishi was having the day off today...he has gone to spoons like he loves to do for breakfast...shakes head. We know he doesn't drink and is very health conscious (other than his coke addition), nobody is going to believe he is down the spoons with the alkies for a big breakfast out of choice.
Speaking to the veterans - whose group includes ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - Mr Sunak revealed that the pub is a favourite place that he 'very occasionally' goes to for breakfast after a park run.
Obviously his handlers don't feel like they can risk him do soap box / Cameron direct type events.
Rishi sitting there with a mug of tea whilst everyone else tucks in. Could they not at least have put a plate in front of him for the photos? Wouldn't even need to be a fry-up, a bowl of shredded wheat or half a grapefruit would do.
Rishi's team seem to be going out of their way to make him look weird - is it deliberate? Are they going with "we're leaning in to his image as a nerd" as a strategy? It's the sort of thing I could see working for someone like Rachel Reeves, but a bit desperate from the PM.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
1992 election was the strangest in modern times. We had been in a shocking recession yet Major scraped home. 1992 and 2017 have been the most exciting recent election nights.
I think this one will have genuine shocks outside the normal Lab GAIN deluge
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Again its the old uk class system. None of those went to private school and were all with the possible exception of miliband from fairly modest backgrounds. The problem is these guys didnt have old public school pals in positions of power to cover for them.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Again its the old uk class system. None of those went to private school and were all with the possible exception of miliband from fairly modest backgrounds. The problem is these guys didnt have old public school pals in positions of power to cover for them.
Jesus, I hadn't noticed the pattern. I just reeled them off. That's... eye-opening.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
1992 election was the strangest in modern times. We had been in a shocking recession yet Major scraped home. 1992 and 2017 have been the most exciting recent election nights.
Yes, Labour supporters will presumably have a great time in July, but for unpredicability the neutral observer may have little to interest them.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
I have just read that and I am not having a fit and saying it is unfair, but suggesting some of it is unnecessary and adds to the general view that being in politics is not something many would aspire to in this environment
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
Again its the old uk class system. None of those went to private school and were all with the possible exception of miliband from fairly modest backgrounds. The problem is these guys didnt have old public school pals in positions of power to cover for them.
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
1992 election was the strangest in modern times. We had been in a shocking recession yet Major scraped home. 1992 and 2017 have been the most exciting recent election nights.
I think this one will have genuine shocks outside the normal Lab GAIN deluge
Politics is definitely more sanitised now, than back in 92, maybe that's why we have ended up with Sunak v Starmer, but that still has to be preferable to Johnson v Corbyn
Polls already dropping and it's not even Saturday evening yet? #Popcorn on standby
Looking good @GIN1138 . Do you think the eight point drop in Lab-Con in just a fortnight is down to Rishi's campaign start? The advantage of surprise over everyone else, allowing the Tories to hit the ground running- face first.
@algarkirk raises an interesting question as to what constitutes a "disaster" for the Tories? He's calling 41-33 not to be. But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84. That's a 2019 style result reversed. Would that be seen as a disaster or not? It was for Labour. Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
Unlikely because the Tories only won a maj of 80 in 2019 with a lead of 12%.
Sunak's approval ratings have ticked up since the campaign started. Still early days but one to watch.
I still think it will be a Labour victory but I am still not yet ready to decide between that being a Hung Parliament up to a landslide.
Its an artefact of the disengaged becoming engaged. A lot of the disinterested and DKs were Con leaning types. Labour will win. I think nearly 100 majority with 50 to 150 my 'range' at the moment
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%.
If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
This could prove to be true of course but it relies on an assumption that 2019 Tory voters were in any way wedded to the party. I suspect for many it was a vote to 'get Brexit done' and/or pro-Johnson and/or anti-Corbyn.
Yes, I think voters are much more willing to change their minds from one election to the next than they were a generation ago. Over the last five GEs my wife has voted for five different parties (one each for the main five in England).
Can Rishi sue for breach of copyright? Only Rishi has a plan. "Starmer has no plan, Labour will take you back to square one".
He should give them the benefit of his experience:
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
Still think Kinnock was better than he is portrayed, was treated appallingly by the right wing media, all he ever seems to be remembered is for falling in the water, done a lot of the hard yards for Blair, imo
Kinnock, Major, Hague, Brown, Miliband were all unfairly maligned. The people like Big_G having fits about how unfairly Sunak has been portrayed over the past few days are mostly of the type who didn't give a fuck when it was only happening to Labour leaders over the past 20 years, which is why I'm pretty short on sympathy with them. They are, strictly speaking, correct, of course: Sunak is getting it in the neck for non-mistakes. But if you only whine when it's affecting your team, you can stuff it.
I have just read that and I am not having a fit and saying it is unfair, but suggesting some of it is unnecessary and adds to the general view that being in politics is not something many would aspire to in this environment
"This" environment has been around for many years. Nothing has changed, only the direction of the can't-do-right criticism. You just haven't noticed because you're a partisan for one of the two sides.
With all the reading the runes and analysis of the whys and wherefores over Sunak calling the election now, part of me wonders if it's really simple and was telegraphed last autumn:
[i]BREAKING: Jeremy Hunt has been caught in a secret recording during a private meeting with Tory activists suggesting that Sunak will call a general election once inflation has fallen below three per cent - giving the strongest hint yet that a poll will be held next autumn. 7:39 PM · Sep 30, 2023 · 1.8M Views[/I]
What if Sunak had a simple trigger that he'd decided upon several months ago - one where he (having been Chancellor and deep in his spreadsheets) assumed he was addressing the single greatest issue that people genuinely have?
Because as it turns out, nearly eight months after that tweet, he pulled the trigger the day that inflation was announced below three percent.
I concluded much the same. I think he's been waiting for that number. If it had happened in April he'd have gone then.
It is daft to be triggered by an inflation rate because voters in shops across the land are weighing up the pound in their pocket against the number on the shelf, and not sitting at home and watching the news to see if it will be Heinz or own-brand ketchup this week. And the BoE MPC can't react to fallen inflation because they are in purdah because Rishi called the election.
Also, while high inflation makes people feel poor immediately, low inflation only makes people feel rich very gradually. Inflation falling <> prices falling. It seems astonishing that Rishi or Conservative strategists would fail to grasp this, but that seems to be the way of it.
Yeah, Once inflation has decimated someone's earnings and savings it can take months or years to feel better off.
Inflation leads to higher interest rates which cheers savers.
It was the decade of 0.5% interest returns which depressed savers.
Polls already dropping and it's not even Saturday evening yet? #Popcorn on standby
Looking good @GIN1138 . Do you think the eight point drop in Lab-Con in just a fortnight is down to Rishi's campaign start? The advantage of surprise over everyone else, allowing the Tories to hit the ground running- face first.
It's the rule of football. A blue team has won the League so PM will be blue too.
Comments
Otherwise. Yeah makes absolute sense. Doubtless a useful bit of publicity and income for facilities which wouldn't otherwise be used much for the next three months.
So win-win.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4723999#Comment_4723999?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=households
Vast amounts of construction are needed and your weasel bullshit doesn't change that.
But if he is still interested in the game there's surely a seat that would have him, and he'd have influence even if not leadership as one of the surviving MPs with any experience after this election.
AN suggests Gaza may mean Lab lose "one or two' to WPB.
GG replied 'many more than that Andrew!'
He's said WPB minimum target is 150,000 votes which gets them up the next rung of the parliamentary league but he's after a lot more than that.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240524_W.pdf
The case for Tories doing much better than expected in embedded in the data:
Of the 2019 Tory voters 41% plan to vote Tory, and 19% each for Reform and DK, totalling 38%.
If only a third of these people can switch from Reform and DK to Tory, than the Tories are on 33%. If events turn a little against Labour and they drop just 3 points, to 41% we are in line for a result that is not a disaster for the Tories.
This should not be regarded as out of the question. Those who pay no attention to politics are just warming up the valves on their medium wave radiograms for the first time sine Boris was in charge.
I believe Labour will get about 40, maybe 39 and the Tories high 20s to perhaps 1997 level if they get the vote out. Depending on tactical voting is where we fall in the range. I think with new boundaries there will be slightly less effective tactical voting and the LDs will not have the raw numbers to assist Labour overly much
Doubling candidates looks very achievable, as does doubling or tipling the voteshare, even if we assume for sake of argument Tories will squeeze them from their low to mid teens share in some polls, and that will be devastating for the Tories.
(They are also spotting in Vennells and co that the super high paid are no more adequate than they are.)
LAB: 47% (+1)
CON: 22% (-1)
REF: 12% (+1)
LDM: 8% (=)
GRN: 6% (-2)
via
@wethinkpolling
, 23-24 May
(Changes with 17 May)
https://x.com/OprosUK/status/1794317873407807702
Party Leader Approval Ratings:
Keir Starmer (LAB): 34% (-6)
Rishi Sunak (CON): 25% (=)
via
@wethinkpolling
, 23-24 May
(Changes with 17 May)
https://x.com/OprosUK/status/1794317979980857433
Edit - hence you could argue low to mid 20s and the blues come back to my 29% or so (in a very very basic read across)
Keir Starmer (LAB): 42% (-2)
Rishi Sunak (CON): 24% (-1)
via
@wethinkpolling
, 23-24 May
(Changes with 17 May)
https://x.com/OprosUK/status/1794318097274569176
Some interesting polling out.
Dead men walking
But reading the post back I don't think it was saying the Tories would win even if these voters did come back.
He's calling 41-33 not to be.
But I make that a Lab majority of c. 84.
That's a 2019 style result reversed.
Would that be seen as a disaster or not?
It was for Labour.
Even if it is currently something of a mountain to climb to even get there. And probably a result that many Tories would be secretly relieved at.
If Labour wins a majority, it will be hailed as a success and Keir Starmer will feel triumphant. It won't last but he'll probably get a polling boost post the election.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/thames-water-vomiting-bug-cryptosporidium
Cold, soulless. Not sure it's a future I necessarily want to think is the future. But was cheap
And yes, the first few months will see a significant polling bounce just like Boz had early 2020.
As Labour came 2nd in 2017 you’d like to think someone would like to stand? I have always loathed tactical carve ups by political parties. All voters deserve the full options of candidates to support
https://x.com/Simon4NDorset/status/1793522530495721525
"I’ll tell you what happens with plans. You start with far-fetched goals. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the months sticking to that - outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs - and you end up in the grotesque chaos of standing in the pouring rain in Downing Street, calling an election that you cannot win."
That said, if budgets are limited and you want or need to be within a few hundred metres of the castle, easyHotel is a good option. I expect it'll be noisy but some people are ok with that.
Polls already dropping and it's not even Saturday evening yet? #Popcorn on standby
It seems astonishing that Rishi or Conservative strategists would fail to grasp this, but that seems to be the way of it.
Could I be Prime Minister? Yeah, why not.
Would I be good at it? Probably not.
Would I be better than the last three holders of the office however? Quite possibly.
Suddenly makes you think that almost anyone could do the job.......
Everything is gravitating towards these cities on the east coast. So, despite a stagnant population and the capital a building site, you have booksellers fighting it out with the rest of the population for inadequate accomodation.
We need levelling up.
(Cough Northern Ireland, cough).
https://x.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1794314993707716772
Thought Labour were for the youngish vote but reality kicking in maybe
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-bridget-phillipson-criticised-for-refusing-to-rule-out-tuition-fee-hike-13142619
See you all this evening for some polling porn, anyway! 😂
Now politicians are so soft establishment (from all parties) and weak that I cannot think of a single "fighter" in modern politics except maybe Galloway (which is maybe he was elected recently)
You wouldn’t want them all the time but if you’re doing some hard travel they are weirdly relaxing
https://x.com/CymruUKIP/status/1793664986923044985
MPs spreading it as genuine have a problem imo.
This will last until the General Election concludes.
During this time there will be restrictions on communications activity and Government social media accounts will be quieter than usual.
https://x.com/cabinetofficeuk/status/1794262124207722528?
If a "breaks all the established rules" type landslide result is on the cards, that seems like a value bet compared to say, betting on Cons getting 50-100 seats, at 4.2 on Betfair. Especially since the Tories could actually win a lot more seats if the Reform vote comes home, with Labour still getting in the high 40s in overall vote share.
In 2010, they were in a formal alliance with the UUP and that alliance stood in 648 seats.
Hamilton gone? For shame
Household is used to mean any number of people living in a nominal housing unit. So, if you have people living in an impromptu HMO, that’s one household. But they all are trying to get a place of their own.
This isn't a problem for the Tories as they can allow the sector to die except for their preferred elite universities.
Good old Scotland.
Rishi's team seem to be going out of their way to make him look weird - is it deliberate? Are they going with "we're leaning in to his image as a nerd" as a strategy? It's the sort of thing I could see working for someone like Rachel Reeves, but a bit desperate from the PM.
Over the last five GEs my wife has voted for five different parties (one each for the main five in England).
You just haven't noticed because you're a partisan for one of the two sides.
It was the decade of 0.5% interest returns which depressed savers.