With his first 2 big announcements - National Service and Quadruple Pensions Lock - we can see Rishi Sunak isn’t trying to win this election. He’s looking to shore up the core and minimise losses. Which is OK in the circumstances. But it needs less shambolic implementation.
@lewis_goodall Will be amazed if we get to polling day with inheritance tax left untouched. Suspect promise to abolish will be centrepiece of Conservative manifesto
Vibe: Old people Policy: Free broadband - the modern equivalent of free TV license
No.
This was discussed previously.
Not only does the free TV license remain, a Royal Commission will determine whether TV returns to 4 channels, or only 3, with big buttons to select each one.
Broadband to be shut down and to be replaced by the return of Teletext.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Vibe: Old people Policy: Free broadband - the modern equivalent of free TV license
No.
This was discussed previously.
Not only does the free TV license remain, a Royal Commission will determine whether TV returns to 4 channels, or only 3, with big buttons to select each one.
Broadband to be shut down and to be replaced by the return of Teletext.
I think that's already a Count Binface policy.
But an end to self service supermarket tills will be in there.
Just saw Mercer in the times radio podcast. WOW. He looks like a man who has given up ... he offers nothing buttotal exasperation. He is making excuses for why there is no message discipline, which is catastrophic for a GE campaign. His tone screams: I don't believe a word of what I am saying... I am just saying what I have to.... crazy to witness this kind of performance this early in a campaign. I am saying this as marketing academic: sunak is going to regret going 6 weeks long. He wanted to reveal labour... his own party is revealing itself. Who would get excited about this????
He has the air of someone who's never been on a video call before.
It's almost a surprise that he didn't stand up and show us all that he was only clothed from the waist up...
Wow James Daly has an equally crash and burn interview.... wow.... oh dear oh dear... the deputy chair ... Holy cow, what a shambles. I am going to repeat: the tories are going to totally unravel before the 4th of july.
There aren't many vetrans of 1997 and 2001 left on the Conservative benches, and even fewer are in any sort of senior role. (There's Andrew Mitchell, but at a glance, I can't see any others.) The class of 2005 gives you Shapps, Davies the Welsh and Gove, but the Conservatives were on the up by them.
How many of them have the experience needed to develop the inner fortitude to keep smiling as the ship sinks beneath the waves?
We're about to find out, but the omens aren't good.
I suspect I know why the country is in this state. They have run it with the same skill they are running their campaign. Dear me... what a terrifying thought.
@lewis_goodall Clear this Tory campaign is about shoring up the core vote as much as possible, rather than broad strategy. Given their polling, it’s not a foolish idea. But it’s a strategy for averting catastrophe by losing quite badly, not winning.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
This time they won't need to as they'll be joined by everyone up to age 60.
@lewis_goodall Will be amazed if we get to polling day with inheritance tax left untouched. Suspect promise to abolish will be centrepiece of Conservative manifesto
Yep. Hunt has already used the front page of Telegraph this weekend to say as much.
Is there any betting on which seat will get the smallest majority ? If not be good to do a sweep stake or opinions on here
It's really hard to pinpoint an individual seat for such a specific thing, given you'd probably have to first think about what overall swing is likely, then try to predict any local variation which might be higher or lower, then apply that to the current majorities, taking account of changes to seat boundaries.
The most marginal seat last time was Fermanagh and South Tyrone at 57 votes, and it has been even more marginal in the past. But you'd probably need a NI expert, and know whether the unionist parties will cooperate as they sometimes do there.
Most other marginals last time probably won't be this time - I believe in 2017 the most marginal was Fife NE by 2 votes, which the LDs held by 1300 in 2019. Which is pretty marginal in most places but Scotland has a lot of close races.
Was announced today that Unionists wouldn't be co-operating there.
But Mr Ross has alrteady demanded that tactical voting happen - when it favours the Tories. About a week ago (seems a long time ...).
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Well maybe. But I'm 57 and I work with 18 year olds. And it's pissing me off quite a lot.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
Redfield appear to have not done a poll because theyve been busy doing one of those shit 'who would you rather have a pint with/put up a shelf' Sunak/Starmer polls for the independent. Cant see any VI. Garbage
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
If there's no change might as well swap people over from time to time to keep them a bit fresher.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Labour's position is that they'd keep the money in the levelling up fund as was previously promised. Which seems sensible as it's badly needed as it's there to replace previous EU pots of money and was/is apparently a matter of national importance to spend what money there is on struggling communities.
So why should they be following by offering a more realistic version of a crackpot scheme when there's umpteen places the money it 'costs' (but apparently will cost way more) is needed?
There's an important point here as to why Labour is cautious. If Labour came up with a scheme like this, or a giveaway to pensioners like the one announced tonight, it would be rightly asked where the money was coming from and whether it was a good use of it. Imagine say Labour had announced a £2.5bn scheme with dubious costings to offer training to poor 18-year-olds. It would immediately have come under scrutiny.
Yet the same sort of scrutiny never gets applied to the Tories when they offer their bribes or own pet schemes. Look at the money wasted on sending one bloke, voluntarily, to Rwanda.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
If someone is repeatedly kicking you in the crotch, and someone else says they'll do nothing for you and will leave you alone, then I will vote for the one who'll do nothing for you and will leave you alone.
Indeed, in part, that's a typical small-c conservative attitude.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
I've decided where I would time travel to. I would pile up a bunch of newspapers and go back to 1997. I'd track down Carol Vorderman and let her loose on all the shit that's happened. Give her a fast track to her anti-Tory radicalisation.
I'd then get rich winning the national lottery ten times in a row.
I'd then fly to New York and spend the next four years getting to know Donald Trump, before inviting him to a breakfast meeting on a crisp, early fall Tuesday morning. Somewhere with a view. I wouldn't show up.
If you get rid of The Apprentice you nullify both Trump and Surallan Sugar too.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
They're not going to be returned to power.
And even if they were it would be very unlikely to happen - vague proposals in election campaigns have a habit of not being implemented.
What Labour lacks is any sort of alternative, realistic or otherwise, to what the current situation is.
I keep reading here that 'everything is broken' and that 'nothing works'.
Okay then so what are Labour's ideas for change.
I'm not even expecting detailed plans with appropriate funding - it's obvious Labour hasn't got them.
I'm just curious about general ideas - Corbyn and McDonell had them, Miliband and Balls had them - do Starmer and Reeves have any ?
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that. But turn about can be seen as fair.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Well maybe. But I'm 57 and I work with 18 year olds. And it's pissing me off quite a lot.
I'm 49. But I have kids who will soon be in the 18-24 bracket. And it's pissing me off too.
Survation out tomorrow and they promise 'some change in party vote shares'
Bunch of teasers. That could be a difference of +1.
But as I've noted it would be amusing if despite the media and internal grumbling over national service it actually does work to bring Reform voters back into the fold.
It would be even more amusing if it backfired completely - elections are about push and pull factors, and parties can calculate what the net impact of which is which sometimes.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that.
I don't want to see pensioners pushed into poverty.
I do want to see well off pensioners have to pay the same tax rates as well off workers.
Has there been an election where the two main party leaders are so bad ( dull) at public speaking? Oh for the days of Thatcher against Kinnock or even Blair and Hague
Count Binface vs Farage is our future. We're still winning compared to the USA I guess.
I am not a big fan of novelty candidates who have no hope of winning and are just doing it for the attention, whose whole platform is garbage, and who bring the whole process into disrepute from the ridiculous things they wear.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that.
I don't want to see pensioners pushed into poverty.
I do want to see well off pensioners have to pay the same tax rates as well off workers.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
Me neither. And no it isn't. But there is the possibility that's where we'll finish up.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
How many days until the Tories are promising a national service levy on U30s who have not yet done national service to fund NS and the quadruple lock? 3 is my bet.
On a side note the past few days have seen the few Tory twitter supporters under 60 turn from reluctantly supporting them to being actively hostile - including ones who write for the spectator(!).
Redfield appear to have not done a poll because theyve been busy doing one of those shit 'who would you rather have a pint with/put up a shelf' Sunak/Starmer polls for the independent. Cant see any VI. Garbage
"Who would you rather put up a shelf - Sunak/Starmer" would be extremely dependent on the height of the shelf.
Redfield appear to have not done a poll because theyve been busy doing one of those shit 'who would you rather have a pint with/put up a shelf' Sunak/Starmer polls for the independent. Cant see any VI. Garbage
"Who would you rather put up a shelf - Sunak/Starmer" would be extremely dependent on the height of the shelf.
Not really.
I wouldn't trust Sunak to build a Billy Bookcase from IKEA.
The seat I live in (counting its main predecessor seat) has been Tory since 1924.
It was a real nailbiter in the 20s, with a majority of 0.1% in 1929, but otherwise hasn't looked competitive since 1966. Labour stopped being the second place choice from 1974 but regained that slot in 2017 and remained 20k behind in 2019.
Probably no upset here even if the Tories go to 100 seats, but will be interesting to see if local strength of the LDs (10x the Labour seats on the local council) can see them regain second or if the national tide sweeps Labour to an even firmer second.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
An interesting thought experiment. Seeing as how Conservatives spent five years telling us all how dangerous Jeremy Corbyn is, they ought to have no problem voting Labour if they lived in Islington North. You know to keep him out.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Labour's position is that they'd keep the money in the levelling up fund as was previously promised. Which seems sensible as it's badly needed as it's there to replace previous EU pots of money and was/is apparently a matter of national importance to spend what money there is on struggling communities.
So why should they be following by offering a more realistic version of a crackpot scheme when there's umpteen places the money it 'costs' (but apparently will cost way more) is needed?
There's an important point here as to why Labour is cautious. If Labour came up with a scheme like this, or a giveaway to pensioners like the one announced tonight, it would be rightly asked where the money was coming from and whether it was a good use of it. Imagine say Labour had announced a £2.5bn scheme with dubious costings to offer training to poor 18-year-olds. It would immediately have come under scrutiny.
Yet the same sort of scrutiny never gets applied to the Tories when they offer their bribes or own pet schemes. Look at the money wasted on sending one bloke, voluntarily, to Rwanda.
So its an acceptance that Labour really haven't got anything.
We'll get an adjustment here and a modification there.
Fine by me - I'm doing well.
I'm not saying 'everything is broken' or that 'nothing works'.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Just checked my constituency online and it seems my postcode in the boundary changes has gone from being a in a constituency that voted 60% Tory last time, to in one that voted 60% Labour last time.
Was expecting this to be a marginal constituency this time, given national swing, but I guess not.
Tory ultra safe seats tend to have a lower winning percentage than Labour ultra safe seats, that has to have been one of the highest if not the highest Tory share anywhere in the country to get that drop.
Just checked my constituency online and it seems my postcode in the boundary changes has gone from being a in a constituency that voted 60% Tory last time, to in one that voted 60% Labour last time.
Was expecting this to be a marginal constituency this time, given national swing, but I guess not.
I'm trying to work out which constituency this might be from the figures. 😊
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
What's he going to do, trudge back to Charles and say there's been a terrible mistake?
If the response from the focus group wasn't "We think it was wrong to call an election" but "You look an even bigger pillock than you did before", he could just resign.
Just checked my constituency online and it seems my postcode in the boundary changes has gone from being a in a constituency that voted 60% Tory last time, to in one that voted 60% Labour last time.
Was expecting this to be a marginal constituency this time, given national swing, but I guess not.
I'm trying to work out which constituency this might be from the figures. 😊
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Scotland saved Theresa May. Will it save the Tories by somehow holding on or even gaining seats during a UK wide meltdown?
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Even more remarkably - the Tories are less than a 1% swing away from only holding 3 seats in all of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire. 3/36! How about that for destroying the blue wall.
Just checked my constituency online and it seems my postcode in the boundary changes has gone from being a in a constituency that voted 60% Tory last time, to in one that voted 60% Labour last time.
Was expecting this to be a marginal constituency this time, given national swing, but I guess not.
I'm trying to work out which constituency this might be from the figures. 😊
LOL! I rounded the figures to be fair. 🤣
I'll just pick the first seat I randomly look at which had a Tory vote at around 60%, less scientific than Andy.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Scotland saved Theresa May. Will it save the Tories by somehow holding on or even gaining seats during a UK wide meltdown?
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Even more remarkably - the Tories are less than a 1% swing away from only holding 3 seats in all of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire. 3/36! How about that for destroying the blue wall.
By way of contrast they have 111/147 on Buckinghamshire Council (yes, the council size is ridiculous).
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that. But turn about can be seen as fair.
A milder version of this view is available.
Essentially that almost every major economic and political decision of recent times has been made to favour the electorally influential Boomer and oldest among the Gen X cohorts - because of their large numbers. Tax cuts when young, house prices inflated when homeowners. Joined the EEC when young and in favour, left the EU when old and didn't like it any more. Got the triple lock when began to hit old age, while taxes rise on the working age. NHS the one public service protected in terms of spending - as use it most. And so on.
If the first election you voted in was 1974, and you followed your age's voting trends, then you will have never voted for the losing side in an election or the Brexit referendum. If your first was 2010 you've never won one - possibly until now, as the point becomes closer where that effect wears off, hastened by the fact the Tories have been quite so incompetent and unpopular.
That's starting to unwind though and there will be diminishing returns to pandering to pensioners as the demographic post-war bulge begins to dissipate. That'll mean policies less obviously skewed to bribing pensioners and that they might actually be forced to share burdens put on working age people.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
The solution here could be compulsory voluntary work for retirees where triple locked pension increases only get paid to those that give something back to society. A National Service scheme if you will.
What's he going to do, trudge back to Charles and say there's been a terrible mistake?
If the response from the focus group wasn't "We think it was wrong to call an election" but "You look an even bigger pillock than you did before", he could just resign.
I've been suggesting for ages the Tories should go into the GE with no leader at all, and run their leader contest concurrently, so people can believe which version of the party they like best when casting their ballot.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that. But turn about can be seen as fair.
A milder version of this view is available.
Essentially that almost every major economic and political decision of recent times has been made to favour the electorally influential Boomer and oldest among the Gen X cohorts - because of their large numbers. Tax cuts when young, house prices inflated when homeowners. Joined the EEC when young and in favour, left the EU when old and didn't like it any more. Got the triple lock when began to hit old age, while taxes rise on the working age. NHS the one public service protected in terms of spending - as use it most. And so on.
If the first election you voted in was 1974, and you followed your age's voting trends, then you will have never voted for the losing side in an election or the Brexit referendum. If your first was 2010 you've never won one - possibly until now, as the point becomes closer where that effect wears off, hastened by the fact the Tories have been quite so incompetent and unpopular.
That's starting to unwind though and there will be diminishing returns to pandering to pensioners as the demographic post-war bulge begins to dissipate. That'll mean policies less obviously skewed to bribing pensioners and that they might actually be forced to share burdens put on working age people.
Indeed as a Millennial I have seen the opposite through my life - tuition fees introduced when about to start university etc, etc, etc but I fully expect the pensioner-friendly policies to have vanished by the time my cohort retire.
Indeed already gold-plated pensions that people are retired on and we pay to fund (since they were never funded and never paid for by those who are on them) are already unavailable to us. And the only idea politicians seem to have about making pensions affordable is to make us retire later and save for our own pensions privately when we're not the issue.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Labour's position is that they'd keep the money in the levelling up fund as was previously promised. Which seems sensible as it's badly needed as it's there to replace previous EU pots of money and was/is apparently a matter of national importance to spend what money there is on struggling communities.
So why should they be following by offering a more realistic version of a crackpot scheme when there's umpteen places the money it 'costs' (but apparently will cost way more) is needed?
There's an important point here as to why Labour is cautious. If Labour came up with a scheme like this, or a giveaway to pensioners like the one announced tonight, it would be rightly asked where the money was coming from and whether it was a good use of it. Imagine say Labour had announced a £2.5bn scheme with dubious costings to offer training to poor 18-year-olds. It would immediately have come under scrutiny.
Yet the same sort of scrutiny never gets applied to the Tories when they offer their bribes or own pet schemes. Look at the money wasted on sending one bloke, voluntarily, to Rwanda.
So its an acceptance that Labour really haven't got anything.
We'll get an adjustment here and a modification there.
Fine by me - I'm doing well.
I'm not saying 'everything is broken' or that 'nothing works'.
But what about those are struggling ?
Well they're always damned if they do, and damned if they don't aren't they? Propose massive new policies with the spending to back them up and they're unaffordable, don't and be realistic and tell the truth that there's no magic wand and it's "uninspiring".
Frankly, if they do the limited stuff pledged so far on the NHS, schools, planning, and investment in energy and transport, it'll be a significant improvement. One would always like to see more though.
But it's certainly better to be spending money on trying to improve people's lives and invest in communities rather than in making 18-year-olds do forced labour to some Boomers' Second World War fetish.
So, we're down to 343 Conservative MPs. Is that the final number we end this sad, sorry parliament on? Or will there be further drama right at the end?
I see they restored the whip to Matt Hancock last week on compassionate grounds or something - have you included him in your tally? I have no doubt you would want your calculations to be accurate (although in that case some of them are so semi-detached these days you might have to start using decimal places.)
No, I used the Wikipedia figure after first checking Lucy Allen's update had been noted. I made no checks other than that. Looks to me like Hatt Mancock hasn't been updated. So my figure may be wrong but ICBA to work out how much, all of a sudden it seems like a lot of bother for no reward
Current figures are 345: Hancock and Bob Stewart were readmitted on Friday.
Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 43, LD 15, DUP 7, SF 7, PC 3, Alba 2, SDLP 2, Alliance 1, Green 1, Reform 1, WPGB 1, Ind 16, Spk 1. Conservative majority 40 (Working 46).
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that. But turn about can be seen as fair.
A milder version of this view is available.
Essentially that almost every major economic and political decision of recent times has been made to favour the electorally influential Boomer and oldest among the Gen X cohorts - because of their large numbers. Tax cuts when young, house prices inflated when homeowners. Joined the EEC when young and in favour, left the EU when old and didn't like it any more. Got the triple lock when began to hit old age, while taxes rise on the working age. NHS the one public service protected in terms of spending - as use it most. And so on.
If the first election you voted in was 1974, and you followed your age's voting trends, then you will have never voted for the losing side in an election or the Brexit referendum. If your first was 2010 you've never won one - possibly until now, as the point becomes closer where that effect wears off, hastened by the fact the Tories have been quite so incompetent and unpopular.
That's starting to unwind though and there will be diminishing returns to pandering to pensioners as the demographic post-war bulge begins to dissipate. That'll mean policies less obviously skewed to bribing pensioners and that they might actually be forced to share burdens put on working age people.
Those born in the mid 50s have done well in recent decades.
They weren't so fortunate when they were younger and there was mass unemployment.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Who are demanding punishment, and who may end up a lot worse than imagined? This feels like an interestingpoint, but I can't see what it's referring to.
Very simply. That a Labour government can't solve many of the economic problems we face. And that a rising tide of the employed demand that pensioners are pushed into poverty to compensate. Basically the reverse. I don't want that. But turn about can be seen as fair.
A milder version of this view is available.
Essentially that almost every major economic and political decision of recent times has been made to favour the electorally influential Boomer and oldest among the Gen X cohorts - because of their large numbers. Tax cuts when young, house prices inflated when homeowners. Joined the EEC when young and in favour, left the EU when old and didn't like it any more. Got the triple lock when began to hit old age, while taxes rise on the working age. NHS the one public service protected in terms of spending - as use it most. And so on.
If the first election you voted in was 1974, and you followed your age's voting trends, then you will have never voted for the losing side in an election or the Brexit referendum. If your first was 2010 you've never won one - possibly until now, as the point becomes closer where that effect wears off, hastened by the fact the Tories have been quite so incompetent and unpopular.
That's starting to unwind though and there will be diminishing returns to pandering to pensioners as the demographic post-war bulge begins to dissipate. That'll mean policies less obviously skewed to bribing pensioners and that they might actually be forced to share burdens put on working age people.
Those born in the mid 50s have done well in recent decades.
They weren't so fortunate when they were younger and there was mass unemployment.
I hate to say it, but I'm not sure Donald Trump is making any sense - if it's an unfair advantage for the prosecution to go last, wouldn't it be an unfair advantage for the defense to go last?
Actually there's one policy that the Tories are sure to introduce - the death penalty, it ticks the only box that matters for them - hugely popular with their core.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Labour's position is that they'd keep the money in the levelling up fund as was previously promised. Which seems sensible as it's badly needed as it's there to replace previous EU pots of money and was/is apparently a matter of national importance to spend what money there is on struggling communities.
So why should they be following by offering a more realistic version of a crackpot scheme when there's umpteen places the money it 'costs' (but apparently will cost way more) is needed?
There's an important point here as to why Labour is cautious. If Labour came up with a scheme like this, or a giveaway to pensioners like the one announced tonight, it would be rightly asked where the money was coming from and whether it was a good use of it. Imagine say Labour had announced a £2.5bn scheme with dubious costings to offer training to poor 18-year-olds. It would immediately have come under scrutiny.
Yet the same sort of scrutiny never gets applied to the Tories when they offer their bribes or own pet schemes. Look at the money wasted on sending one bloke, voluntarily, to Rwanda.
So its an acceptance that Labour really haven't got anything.
We'll get an adjustment here and a modification there.
Fine by me - I'm doing well.
I'm not saying 'everything is broken' or that 'nothing works'.
But what about those are struggling ?
Well they're always damned if they do, and damned if they don't aren't they? Propose massive new policies with the spending to back them up and they're unaffordable, don't and be realistic and tell the truth that there's no magic wand and it's "uninspiring".
Frankly, if they do the limited stuff pledged so far on the NHS, schools, planning, and investment in energy and transport, it'll be a significant improvement. One would always like to see more though.
But it's certainly better to be spending money on trying to improve people's lives and invest in communities rather than in making 18-year-olds do forced labour to some Boomers' Second World War fetish.
As I said its fine by me.
It'll also be fine by all those boomers who you're aggrieved about.
Those who are struggling though will continue to struggle.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Scotland saved Theresa May. Will it save the Tories by somehow holding on or even gaining seats during a UK wide meltdown?
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Even more remarkably - the Tories are less than a 1% swing away from only holding 3 seats in all of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire. 3/36! How about that for destroying the blue wall.
Post Brexit the bluewall is really Essex, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and Herefordshire, not those 4 Remain leaning home counties where many seats are vulnerable to the LDs in particular.
Just as the redwall for Labour in 2019 was really North and East London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and most of Wales not ex industrial towns in the North and Midlands any longer
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Scotland saved Theresa May. Will it save the Tories by somehow holding on or even gaining seats during a UK wide meltdown?
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Even more remarkably - the Tories are less than a 1% swing away from only holding 3 seats in all of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire. 3/36! How about that for destroying the blue wall.
Post Brexit the bluewall is really Essex, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and Herefordshire, not those 4 Remain leaning home counties where many seats are vulnerable to the LDs in particular.
Just as the redwall for Labour in 2019 was really North and East London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and most of Wales not ex industrial towns in the North and Midlands any longer
I'd agree the the general 'wall' definition is, imo, used for areas that used to be exceptionally strong for a party yet haveconsistently drifted away and are about to all topple over at once, which is pretty apt for those 4 counties!
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Obviously it would be better if 18-24 year olds turned out more. But a) It's not just them who've been periodically shafted but the under 35s or even 40s now b) Even if they turned out at the same rates as their elders, they'd still get overwhelmed by demographics.
Which probably contributes to the turnout problem. As long as pensioners voted fairly strongly Tory, and they remained competitive down to those in their 30s, it doesn't matter how or if the 18-24 year olds voted. So they get ignored and respond in kind.
Actually there's one policy that the Tories are sure to introduce - the death penalty, it ticks the only box that matters for them - hugely popular with their core.
They could promise to hold a referendum on it. Never mind that it remains a classic example of why referendums are bad.
Sadly, support for reintroduction runs much wider than the Tory party's core:
Actually there's one policy that the Tories are sure to introduce - the death penalty, it ticks the only box that matters for them - hugely popular with their core.
They could promise to hold a referendum on it. Never mind that it remains a classic example of why referendums are bad.
Sadly, support for reintroduction runs much wider than the Tory party's core:
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
A curious revelation in the Sunday Times that a Irish MEP reportedly passed on contact details of dissident Irish republican leader Liam Campbell to a Russian intelligence asset.
You have to assume the SVR arent interested in Liam to spread some bullshit stories on Twitter, so the implications are fairly obvious.
Russia has an extensive and growing intelligence operation in Ireland, its considered a soft underbelly in Europe where there are notable pockets of sympathy which the Russians can exploit as well as having a alot of nice telco cables landing or passing its shores. Given the way they work, its unlikely Liam is the only terror figure they have been seeking to contact over recent years. With the threat of physical sabotage attacks elsewhere in Europe at the moment, those boys would be handy to know and back in Soviet days there were links between the KGB and Republican terror groups in Ireland.
The Irish authorities know all about the issue but dont have the resourcing between the Garda and J2 to cope with the scale of operation. It's rumoured that active assets in the low three figues are conducting operations for the Russians, of which only a fraction of that number are working out the embassy
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Scotland saved Theresa May. Will it save the Tories by somehow holding on or even gaining seats during a UK wide meltdown?
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Even more remarkably - the Tories are less than a 1% swing away from only holding 3 seats in all of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire. 3/36! How about that for destroying the blue wall.
Post Brexit the bluewall is really Essex, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and Herefordshire, not those 4 Remain leaning home counties where many seats are vulnerable to the LDs in particular.
Just as the redwall for Labour in 2019 was really North and East London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and most of Wales not ex industrial towns in the North and Midlands any longer
I'm hoping the terms `Redwall' and `Bluewall' disappear after this election, it sort of worked in 2019 as a term but isnt helpful any more. The presence of 3rd parties isnt addressed and its a catch all that serves little
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
Everybody likes it when they go into opposition. Nobody likes it when they are in power...
Doing a little work on how candidates have done when they have fought the same constituency after being booted from their original party and hadn't realised that John Browne (Con, Winchester 1979-92) after his independent run went over to UKIP and later left these fair isles to live in Florida, doing occasional work for Newsmax. What's up with these Brexiteers that they didn't fancy living in country that they saved from foreign oppression to be massively successful as an independent nation?
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
Definitely not. Possibly the only subject on which both Labour and the Conservatives have ever been both united and wholly in lockstep with another is the absolute necessity of maintaining FPTP for election to the House of Commons. They know that, no matter how badly they get beaten, Buggins' Turn dictates that they'll get back in again if they just wait for the other lot to screw up enough times.
Odd because she was a big supporter of John Major and the Tories at the 1997 election. I wonder what changed.
In the clip she says that she thinks this will be one of the sea change elections where we purge the current lot and to the extent that there's no way back.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
New Statesman forecasts the Tory vote in Aberdeen South to decline by just 2.2%, from 34.3% to 32.1%, which must be one of their best projections in the UK.
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Obviously it would be better if 18-24 year olds turned out more. But a) It's not just them who've been periodically shafted but the under 35s or even 40s now b) Even if they turned out at the same rates as their elders, they'd still get overwhelmed by demographics.
Which probably contributes to the turnout problem. As long as pensioners voted fairly strongly Tory, and they remained competitive down to those in their 30s, it doesn't matter how or if the 18-24 year olds voted. So they get ignored and respond in kind.
We must remind ourselves at this juncture that, accounting both for pure demographics and tendency to turn out and vote, the average British elector is about 55 - i.e. pensionable, or due to become so in a few years' time (and, incidentally, the 18-24, uni student cohort is so small relative to the vast ranks of the retired that it would barely make any difference if 100% of them went to the polls.) It is, therefore, small wonder that politicians are increasingly fixated on old people's needs and desires to the exclusion of all else.
On that topic, the Tories have finally done what they should've done at the Budget (from a party political point of view - the good of the country doesn't enter into the equation, obviously) and discovered another £234 squillion down the back of Jeremy Hunt's sofa with which to bribe pensioners:
And, just as with the slave labour for teenagers plan, the opposition hasn't attacked this because the old get enough and the young suffer enough already. They've bleated that the poor tragic ranks of the aged have somehow been hard done by (presumably because the triple lock got suspended, once in fourteen years, in the middle of an outbreak of plague that smashed the economy to smithereens,) coupled with a sideswipe at the cost of phasing out NI, i.e. sidestepping entirely the wisdom or otherwise of the made-up in a panic plan itself, and making noises about the funding instead.
Prediction: assuming Labour make it into Government, they'll adopt this Tory plan or some similar idea of their own, and pay for it with tax hikes and more austerity for everyone else. As for forced labour for eighteen year olds, you get the impression that the sole reason that won't happen is it would be too costly and complex to administer - although I'm sure that the next Parliament will find alternative ways to punish the young for not being old already. The most likely solution to the university funding crisis isn't relief from the Treasury, it's a massive hike in tuition fees.
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
At what point in the wealth transfer process is it permissible to complain, exactly? We know full well where the money to rescue middle income pensioners from paying more tax will come from, and it won't be from the incomes and estates of rich pensioners. It'll be extracted from everyone else, in the form of tax rises designed to minimise or exclude older voters from paying, and from cuts in social security and public services for working age people.
It's no wonder that nobody wants to have kids and the state is desperate to import cheap labour from developing countries to shore up the tax base. We are, step-by-step, converting the entire country into one massive Bayview Retirement Village.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
Maybe if the 18-24 year olds could be arsed to vote there'd be less of a problem.
Well maybe. But I'm 57 and I work with 18 year olds. And it's pissing me off quite a lot.
I'm 49. But I have kids who will soon be in the 18-24 bracket. And it's pissing me off too.
I'm older, as are my kids. But the sheer boneheaded stupidity of the proposal is pissing me off, too.
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
At what point in the wealth transfer process is it permissible to complain, exactly? We know full well where the money to rescue middle income pensioners from paying more tax will come from, and it won't be from the incomes and estates of rich pensioners. It'll be extracted from everyone else, in the form of tax rises designed to minimise or exclude older voters from paying, and from cuts in social security and public services for working age people.
It's no wonder that nobody wants to have kids and the state is desperate to import cheap labour from developing countries to shore up the tax base. We are, step-by-step, converting the entire country into one massive Bayview Retirement Village.
I think we're just in a place where lots of people will complain vociferously and get performatively angry when the Conservatives say anything, regardless of what it is and when it is.
They can't be silent and keep mum for the next 6 weeks - and you'd criticise them for that too, saying they had nothing to say - so they may as well try and retain as many core votes as possible.
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
Call it what it actually is - the exempt pensioners (and no one else) from our fiscal drag stealth tax policy.
..Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners,".. and against everyone else.
You're not familiar with the story of the straw and the camel ?
My first reaction was that it was a piss take (by someone else other than Sunak).
Odd because she was a big supporter of John Major and the Tories at the 1997 election. I wonder what changed.
She's been on Twitter for too long, and gone off the deep end.
Happens to people.
Whilst I think that's part of it, it's also a bit more calculated than that. Like many media loudmouths of all political persuasions, she likes being the centre of attention. By vocally allying herself with what is obviously going to be the winning team, she will be able to tell her acolytes that *she* was part of the victory.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
At what point in the wealth transfer process is it permissible to complain, exactly? We know full well where the money to rescue middle income pensioners from paying more tax will come from, and it won't be from the incomes and estates of rich pensioners. It'll be extracted from everyone else, in the form of tax rises designed to minimise or exclude older voters from paying, and from cuts in social security and public services for working age people.
It's no wonder that nobody wants to have kids and the state is desperate to import cheap labour from developing countries to shore up the tax base. We are, step-by-step, converting the entire country into one massive Bayview Retirement Village.
I think we're just in a place where lots of people will complain vociferously and get performatively angry when the Conservatives say anything, regardless of what it is and when it is.
They can't be silent and keep mum for the next 6 weeks - and you'd criticise them for that too, saying they had nothing to say - so they may as well try and retain as many core votes as possible.
Yep, that's it. We're in an election campaign, and opponents will criticise even good policies. That's politics. In an ideal world, an election campaign would see sane and sober discussion and dissection of proposed policies. Instead, it becomes playground "I'm right, you're wrong!!!" screeches.
But: 1) The Conservatives are generally not announcing good, or even well thought-out, policies. 2) I see zero reason to expect this government to govern competently, or even in the nation's interest. These proposals are being seen in that light. They have lost all trust.
Comments
With his first 2 big announcements - National Service and Quadruple Pensions Lock - we can see Rishi Sunak isn’t trying to win this election. He’s looking to shore up the core and minimise losses. Which is OK in the circumstances. But it needs less shambolic implementation.
Will be amazed if we get to polling day with inheritance tax left untouched. Suspect promise to abolish will be centrepiece of Conservative manifesto
But an end to self service supermarket tills will be in there.
Clear this Tory campaign is about shoring up the core vote as much as possible, rather than broad strategy. Given their polling, it’s not a foolish idea. But it’s a strategy for averting catastrophe by losing quite badly, not winning.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfAdHBtK_Q&t=469s
And it's pissing me off quite a lot.
That used to be the Tories. Which is why they used to be a party worth voting for.
Hopefully someone steps into that vacuum.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
So why should they be following by offering a more realistic version of a crackpot scheme when there's umpteen places the money it 'costs' (but apparently will cost way more) is needed?
There's an important point here as to why Labour is cautious. If Labour came up with a scheme like this, or a giveaway to pensioners like the one announced tonight, it would be rightly asked where the money was coming from and whether it was a good use of it. Imagine say Labour had announced a £2.5bn scheme with dubious costings to offer training to poor 18-year-olds. It would immediately have come under scrutiny.
Yet the same sort of scrutiny never gets applied to the Tories when they offer their bribes or own pet schemes. Look at the money wasted on sending one bloke, voluntarily, to Rwanda.
Indeed, in part, that's a typical small-c conservative attitude.
The Conservatives need to learn many lessons before it might be them.
Unfortunately I can see them becoming electable again without learning anything.
I'll go with the new boss, thanks.
And even if they were it would be very unlikely to happen - vague proposals in election campaigns have a habit of not being implemented.
What Labour lacks is any sort of alternative, realistic or otherwise, to what the current situation is.
I keep reading here that 'everything is broken' and that 'nothing works'.
Okay then so what are Labour's ideas for change.
I'm not even expecting detailed plans with appropriate funding - it's obvious Labour hasn't got them.
I'm just curious about general ideas - Corbyn and McDonell had them, Miliband and Balls had them - do Starmer and Reeves have any ?
Basically the reverse.
I don't want that.
But turn about can be seen as fair.
Projected Polling:
Corbyn 36% (+36)
LAB 30% (-34)
LD 12% (-4)
GRN 10% (+2)
CON 9% (-1)
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2024/05/27/polling-shows-jeremy-corbyn-is-to-win-islington-north-on-independentsday/
But as I've noted it would be amusing if despite the media and internal grumbling over national service it actually does work to bring Reform voters back into the fold.
It would be even more amusing if it backfired completely - elections are about push and pull factors, and parties can calculate what the net impact of which is which sometimes.
I do want to see well off pensioners have to pay the same tax rates as well off workers.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
Polling suggests that could happen, but constituency polling is typically bullshit.
See eg the constituency polling in 2015 that showed Lib Dems were going to keep their seats due to personal votes.
wait for it
Nor am I a fan of Count Binface.
And a reality that teenagers today will be paying decades after talk of national service are long forgotten.
But there is the possibility that's where we'll finish up.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
On a side note the past few days have seen the few Tory twitter supporters under 60 turn from reluctantly supporting them to being actively hostile - including ones who write for the spectator(!).
I wouldn't trust Sunak to build a Billy Bookcase from IKEA.
It was a real nailbiter in the 20s, with a majority of 0.1% in 1929, but otherwise hasn't looked competitive since 1966. Labour stopped being the second place choice from 1974 but regained that slot in 2017 and remained 20k behind in 2019.
Probably no upset here even if the Tories go to 100 seats, but will be interesting to see if local strength of the LDs (10x the Labour seats on the local council) can see them regain second or if the national tide sweeps Labour to an even firmer second.
I wonder whether they would.
We'll get an adjustment here and a modification there.
Fine by me - I'm doing well.
I'm not saying 'everything is broken' or that 'nothing works'.
But what about those are struggling ?
Con 34.9% (-41.5%)
Lab 23.8% (+8.2%)
Ref 23.5% (new)
Grn 7.3% (new)
LD 5.3% (+0.4%)
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
The idea they could have more seats in Scotland than when they held a UK majority in 2015 is bizarre.
Was expecting this to be a marginal constituency this time, given national swing, but I guess not.
Labour are going to win and win big.
Folkestone and Hythe it is.
Essentially that almost every major economic and political decision of recent times has been made to favour the electorally influential Boomer and oldest among the Gen X cohorts - because of their large numbers. Tax cuts when young, house prices inflated when homeowners. Joined the EEC when young and in favour, left the EU when old and didn't like it any more. Got the triple lock when began to hit old age, while taxes rise on the working age. NHS the one public service protected in terms of spending - as use it most. And so on.
If the first election you voted in was 1974, and you followed your age's voting trends, then you will have never voted for the losing side in an election or the Brexit referendum. If your first was 2010 you've never won one - possibly until now, as the point becomes closer where that effect wears off, hastened by the fact the Tories have been quite so incompetent and unpopular.
That's starting to unwind though and there will be diminishing returns to pandering to pensioners as the demographic post-war bulge begins to dissipate. That'll mean policies less obviously skewed to bribing pensioners and that they might actually be forced to share burdens put on working age people.
Indeed already gold-plated pensions that people are retired on and we pay to fund (since they were never funded and never paid for by those who are on them) are already unavailable to us. And the only idea politicians seem to have about making pensions affordable is to make us retire later and save for our own pensions privately when we're not the issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOzIMZynNKg
Frankly, if they do the limited stuff pledged so far on the NHS, schools, planning, and investment in energy and transport, it'll be a significant improvement. One would always like to see more though.
But it's certainly better to be spending money on trying to improve people's lives and invest in communities rather than in making 18-year-olds do forced labour to some Boomers' Second World War fetish.
Con 345, Lab 205, SNP 43, LD 15, DUP 7, SF 7, PC 3, Alba 2, SDLP 2, Alliance 1, Green 1, Reform 1, WPGB 1, Ind 16, Spk 1. Conservative majority 40 (Working 46).
They weren't so fortunate when they were younger and there was mass unemployment.
Different groups can do well at different times.
Few groups are fortunate throughout their lives.
Why is the corrupt goernment allowed to make the final argument in the case against me? Why can't the defense go last? Big advantage, very unfair. Witch hunt! DJT
https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1795228122482131015#m
Apparently it does vary in different jurisdictions.
It'll also be fine by all those boomers who you're aggrieved about.
Those who are struggling though will continue to struggle.
Just as the redwall for Labour in 2019 was really North and East London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and most of Wales not ex industrial towns in the North and Midlands any longer
New Mentour Pilot video: "Varig Flight 254"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsT8Q0Fmdcc
Which probably contributes to the turnout problem. As long as pensioners voted fairly strongly Tory, and they remained competitive down to those in their 30s, it doesn't matter how or if the 18-24 year olds voted. So they get ignored and respond in kind.
Sadly, support for reintroduction runs much wider than the Tory party's core:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-death-penalty-be-reintroduced-for-the-murder-of-a-police-officer
You have to assume the SVR arent interested in Liam to spread some bullshit stories on Twitter, so the implications are fairly obvious.
Russia has an extensive and growing intelligence operation in Ireland, its considered a soft underbelly in Europe where there are notable pockets of sympathy which the Russians can exploit as well as having a alot of nice telco cables landing or passing its shores. Given the way they work, its unlikely Liam is the only terror figure they have been seeking to contact over recent years. With the threat of physical sabotage attacks elsewhere in Europe at the moment, those boys would be handy to know and back in Soviet days there were links between the KGB and Republican terror groups in Ireland.
The Irish authorities know all about the issue but dont have the resourcing between the Garda and J2 to cope with the scale of operation. It's rumoured that active assets in the low three figues are conducting operations for the Russians, of which only a fraction of that number are working out the embassy
Happens to people.
Politics doesn't work like that.
Get a grip people.
On that topic, the Tories have finally done what they should've done at the Budget (from a party political point of view - the good of the country doesn't enter into the equation, obviously) and discovered another £234 squillion down the back of Jeremy Hunt's sofa with which to bribe pensioners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggvrp8v28o
And, just as with the slave labour for teenagers plan, the opposition hasn't attacked this because the old get enough and the young suffer enough already. They've bleated that the poor tragic ranks of the aged have somehow been hard done by (presumably because the triple lock got suspended, once in fourteen years, in the middle of an outbreak of plague that smashed the economy to smithereens,) coupled with a sideswipe at the cost of phasing out NI, i.e. sidestepping entirely the wisdom or otherwise of the made-up in a panic plan itself, and making noises about the funding instead.
Prediction: assuming Labour make it into Government, they'll adopt this Tory plan or some similar idea of their own, and pay for it with tax hikes and more austerity for everyone else. As for forced labour for eighteen year olds, you get the impression that the sole reason that won't happen is it would be too costly and complex to administer - although I'm sure that the next Parliament will find alternative ways to punish the young for not being old already. The most likely solution to the university funding crisis isn't relief from the Treasury, it's a massive hike in tuition fees.
It's no wonder that nobody wants to have kids and the state is desperate to import cheap labour from developing countries to shore up the tax base. We are, step-by-step, converting the entire country into one massive Bayview Retirement Village.
But the sheer boneheaded stupidity of the proposal is pissing me off, too.
They can't be silent and keep mum for the next 6 weeks - and you'd criticise them for that too, saying they had nothing to say - so they may as well try and retain as many core votes as possible.
..Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners,".. and against everyone else.
You're not familiar with the story of the straw and the camel ?
My first reaction was that it was a piss take (by someone else other than Sunak).
But:
1) The Conservatives are generally not announcing good, or even well thought-out, policies.
2) I see zero reason to expect this government to govern competently, or even in the nation's interest. These proposals are being seen in that light. They have lost all trust.