Polling errors – politicalbetting.com

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

How do you define "very basic standard of living"?

How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.

Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?

Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?

To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.

Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!

You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.

I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.

It's very straightforward. It's £288 per month per child. Per child instead of stopping at child number 2. The government can do a simple multiplication of that amount by the number of children affected to get to the total amount. As we were happily affording more than this, in real terms, until 2017 when the government decided to punish children of parents the government determined were too poor and too feckless, I really don't think this is a huge unaffordable black hole.

Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

DM_Andy said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Fairliered said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like the Beebs election night broadcast will be anchored by Laura K and Clive Myrie.

https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61

In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.

Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?

I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.

There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?

“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”

Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.

LostPassword said:

wooliedyed said:

https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1795404915658883536?s=19
Here's Ed pratfalling several times from different angles

Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.

turbotubbs said:

DM_Andy said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Fairliered said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like the Beebs election night broadcast will be anchored by Laura K and Clive Myrie.

https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61

In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.

Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?

I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.

There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?

“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”

Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.

So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.

I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.

Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...

DM_Andy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljj4xpej9wo

A former Plaid Cymru MP who accepted a police caution for assaulting his wife has announced he will not be standing in the general election.

Jonathan Edwards had been considering running against his former party, but on Tuesday said that on "deep reflection" he had decided it was time for him to step down.

Plaid Cymru had already not selected him for Caerfyrddin.

turbotubbs said:

DM_Andy said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Fairliered said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like the Beebs election night broadcast will be anchored by Laura K and Clive Myrie.

https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61

In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.

Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?

I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.

There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?

“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”

Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.

So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.

I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.

Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

turbotubbs said:

DM_Andy said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Fairliered said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like the Beebs election night broadcast will be anchored by Laura K and Clive Myrie.

https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61

In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.

Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?

I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.

There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?

“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”

Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.

So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.

I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.

Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...

Do you not mean Trevor Phillips on Sky as he is excellent

DecrepiterJohnL said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

I started to wonder if the Lib Dems had decided not to enter this year’s race as have heard so little about/from them so far but plenty from and about reform.

I wonder if this is partly due to my bugbear that political journalists are more interested in “the game” so reform v Tory is a psychodrama that’s fun and exciting with gossip and WhatsApp messages from “sources” whilst the Lib Dem’s are just boring.

The LibDems are just boring. To get attention, they need to return to being our third party for the PMQs slot and television invitations, and also to elect a charismatic leader like Paddy or Chat Show Charlie, even Jeremy Thorpe. Ed Davey could blow up Crufts without making the headlines. Aside from a walk-on role in the Post Office scandal, what's he known for?

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

How do you define "very basic standard of living"?

How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.

Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?

Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?

To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.

Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!

You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.

I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.

It's very straightforward. It's £288 per month per child. Per child instead of stopping at child number 2. The government can do a simple multiplication of that amount by the number of children affected to get to the total amount. As we were happily affording more than this, in real terms, until 2017 when the government decided to punish children of parents the government determined were too poor and too feckless, I really don't think this is a huge unaffordable black hole.

Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.

You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."

I asked what that meant.

You said wibble.

I asked again.

It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.

Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.

I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.

numbertwelve said:

I genuinely don’t think I can watch the BBC coverage now. I don’t mind Myrie, but Kuenssberg? No, no, no. It’s not the right forum for her.

Fiona Bruce would have been better, or Victoria Derbyshire.

CarlottaVance said:

Thread:

If you want to know why the Tories are focusing on National Service and the 'quadruple lock', it's not just that their core voters are elderly. It's that voters are, full stop.

https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1795368444977889716

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

How do you define "very basic standard of living"?

How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.

Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?

Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?

To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.

Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!

You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.

I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.

It's very straightforward. It's £288 per month per child. Per child instead of stopping at child number 2. The government can do a simple multiplication of that amount by the number of children affected to get to the total amount. As we were happily affording more than this, in real terms, until 2017 when the government decided to punish children of parents the government determined were too poor and too feckless, I really don't think this is a huge unaffordable black hole.

Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.

You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."

I asked what that meant.

You said wibble.

I asked again.

It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.

Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.

I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.

Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.

So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"

So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:

How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?

You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.

(*) Whatever that means...

I'm keeping out of this debate - but the big issue comes with blended families who end up having more than 2 children in the family for reasons - that puts them in almost impossible situations that Twin A discusses weekly as we get told the latest disaster that befolds one of a number of families who have cubs in her Scout Cub pack...

And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.

Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.

The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.

Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...

The way he fell off he hadn't planned it he just had not learned how to balance on it

El_Capitano said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".

Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.

The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.

Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.

So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.

This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.

Anabobazina said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.

Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.

The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.

Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...

The way he fell off he hadn't planned it he just had not learned how to balance on it

Who cares?

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

DM_Andy said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Fairliered said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like the Beebs election night broadcast will be anchored by Laura K and Clive Myrie.

https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61

In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.

Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?

I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.

There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?

“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”

Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.

So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.

I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.

Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...

None of this explains how the same person can "see" different bias from different presenters in the same organisation. I've always "felt" that Kuenssberg is quite pro-Tory biased in a way I would not attribute to other BBC journos.
Now, I might be wrong about that, but it's nothing to do with a generalised belief about the BBC.

I think people sometimes see things mistakenly. An awful lot of people believe in conspiracy theories, for instance.

Granted, but people also see things right something too. Many a tale of people thinking there was something just not right about Jimmy Savile without knowing any specifics.

The general view that Kuenssberg shows her Tory bias is NOT something that's explained a lefty stance (because not all presenters are judged similarly), and is also NOT based on people in general just being wrong all the time (because obviously they aren't). There's something about Kuenssberg that makes a lot of people see her, specifically, as a bit Tory.

One of the possible reasons for this is that she actually is a bit of a Tory and doesn't do a good job of hiding it. I'm sure other plausible explanations are out there.

Nigel_Foremain said:

JosiasJessop said:

LostPassword said:

wooliedyed said:

https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1795404915658883536?s=19
Here's Ed pratfalling several times from different angles

Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.

Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!

...until you realise he was a PO Minister. He is not a human he is a snake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-davey-post-office-horizon-it-bates-b2474822.html

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

Cicero said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.

DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.

Tory. SNP. Same thing.

Yes, but he's not Ed Davey. the LDs really should have changed their leader.

There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess.
Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.

RochdalePioneers said:

Cicero said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.

DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.

Tory. SNP. Same thing.

Yes, but he's not Ed Davey. the LDs really should have changed their leader.

There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess.
Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.

You know why the Tories are gunning for him?

Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.

The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.

RochdalePioneers said:

Cicero said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.

DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.

Tory. SNP. Same thing.

Yes, but he's not Ed Davey. the LDs really should have changed their leader.

There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess.
Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.

You know why the Tories are gunning for him?

Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.

The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.

It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.

eek said:

https://www.politics.co.uk/politicslunch/2024/05/28/rishi-sunak-risks-making-this-the-reform-uk-election/

Farage has said as the Tories can't win you may as well vote Reform to tell the Tory party the direction they need to go in.

That attack point that won't have much impact early on but will be a killer as the election draws to the close if Rishi hasn't significantly reduced the polling gap...

Jamarion said:

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.

It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?

They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.

RobD said:

Jamarion said:

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.

It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?

They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.

Is there any indication whatsoever that Sunak favours the death penalty?

DM_Andy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.

Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.

DM_Andy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.

Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.

DM_Andy said:

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.

It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?

They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.

They could copy another Gordon Brown policy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6399457.stm

The chancellor told an audience in London that obliging migrants to carry out community work would help introduce them to the people they will be living alongside and would show they could contribute to society.

Posted without comment

For the Conservatives, shadow home secretary David Davis said the proposal was ill thought out and might mean forcing some professionals who had been in Britain for years to stop working for a time to carry out community service.

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

How do you define "very basic standard of living"?

How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.

Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?

Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?

To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.

Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!

You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.

I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.

It's very straightforward. It's £288 per month per child. Per child instead of stopping at child number 2. The government can do a simple multiplication of that amount by the number of children affected to get to the total amount. As we were happily affording more than this, in real terms, until 2017 when the government decided to punish children of parents the government determined were too poor and too feckless, I really don't think this is a huge unaffordable black hole.

Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.

You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."

I asked what that meant.

You said wibble.

I asked again.

It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.

Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.

I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.

Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.

So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"

So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:

How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?

You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.

(*) Whatever that means...

I'm keeping out of this debate - but the big issue comes with blended families who end up having more than 2 children in the family for reasons - that puts them in almost impossible situations that Twin A discusses weekly as we get told the latest disaster that befolds one of a number of families who have cubs in her Scout Cub pack...

And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't think that SKS's school VAT thing is 'because he's a socialist', it's because this is one bit of red meat he can chuck at supporters and he has precious little other room for manoeuvre. There is a political consensus in this country that neither party is prepared to challenge - it is a very left wing consensus imo, but it won't do SKS much good to tell his supporters that. So we're left with a bit of sticking it to the rich.

Eabhal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't think that SKS's school VAT thing is 'because he's a socialist', it's because this is one bit of red meat he can chuck at supporters and he has precious little other room for manoeuvre. There is a political consensus in this country that neither party is prepared to challenge - it is a very left wing consensus imo, but it won't do SKS much good to tell his supporters that. So we're left with a bit of sticking it to the rich.

"Very left wing consensus" is a stretch.

Have you have considered that you might be very right wing?

Andy_JS said:

Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.

Andy_JS said:

Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.

Foxy said:

MattW said:

Interesting one in @Foxy country.

English Heritage are trying to prevent the Isle of White Coastal Path going along the coast near Osborne House, and want it diverted along several miles of A road instead.

Excuses around "security", but Osborne House is half a mile from the sea, and they give free rein to anyone who has paid to rent one of their cottages.

At the moment it requires aiui walking several miles down an A-road.

Given that English Heritage and Historic England are essentially Government bodies, I'd say it's time to complete the gaps left in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 from the last time Labour were in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvCzfC0zF2I
https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2024/05/27/unfit-for-a-king/

Yes, I was talking to one of Mrs Foxy's cousins who is a campaigner for The Ramblers on the Island.

It's security of income that English Heritage (who run Osborne House) is most bothered about. They don't want people walking in for free to the grounds. A fence along the footpath would do the trick.

Anabobazina said:

numbertwelve said:

I genuinely don’t think I can watch the BBC coverage now. I don’t mind Myrie, but Kuenssberg? No, no, no. It’s not the right forum for her.

Fiona Bruce would have been better, or Victoria Derbyshire.

Laura K is unbearable, and hopeless with it.

ITV is the place to be: Ed Balls and Geo Osborne.

Scott_xP said:

Doctor Who and Sherlock writer Steven Moffat: "our current government basically found somebody else's mandate down the back of a sofa and that's not how it's supposed to work."

DM_Andy said:

MattW said:

DM_Andy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

AlsoLei said:

Two more Labour retirements in very safe London seats:

Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074

John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331

As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.

Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.

The House of Lords is smaller than it was in 2018. 792 then to 783 now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45981790

So "ever-growing" is not correct.

I do not know what it peaked at, however. I suspect it has been basically flat in numbers for quite a long time.

There's still the Dissolution Honours and possibly Sunak's Resignation Honours to come in.

HYUFD said:

Jamarion said:

williamglenn said:

Jamarion said:

So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.

It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?

They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.

Not really, most of the civil service, BBC, universities, CBI, even public school teachers are not Brexiteer Conservatives

Scott_xP said:

Doctor Who and Sherlock writer Steven Moffat: "our current government basically found somebody else's mandate down the back of a sofa and that's not how it's supposed to work."