The War at Home: Labour Defences (Part One) – politicalbetting.com

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...

If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:

Trump's conviction doesn't seem to have altered the polls at all. These figures from The Economist are the same as before.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-biden-polls

"Trump 45%
Biden 44%"

That's not true when it come to the state polls.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-gets-good-sign-new-critical-battleground-states-poll-1910194

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

nico679 said:

Will the useless media actually ask Farage some tough questions.

Leaving the ECHR breaches the GFA , risks losing security co-operation with the EU .

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Farooq said:

Nigelb said:

Farooq said:

IanB2 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Heathener said:

1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you

I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.

(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)

Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.

I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote

True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.

Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.

(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)

Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.

But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.

The whole "I had a conversation with my wife" thing is entirely him hiding behind her skirts to justify his reversion to the rut. It's his way of taking offence at any criticism by pretending that they're somehow attacking his wife.
He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.

Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!

Time to leave Big_G alone, I think.

I was happy to gently take the piss when he announced his 'shock' decision, but it's really unfair to continue attacking a single PBer for what isn't a particularly outlandish decision.
He understandably touchy if everyone continues piling on.

I got thinking about it because of his super-sensitive touchiness about things that were utterly unrelated to his vote volte-face. It was very weird so I got thinking about what must be going on in his head. Wallowing in victimhood when other people were very gently debating things like drones is a kind of control drama. It's a way of silencing other people by making any kind of disagreement haram.

G can vote however he likes. Like others, I never believed him about switching and found his inevitable u-turn simply amusing.
But since then he's been excessively whiny about, frankly, nothing at all. Example: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4838775#Comment_4838775
and of course the nonsense about showering that successfully got him out of an awkward spot when he was talking out of his hat about drones.

That kind of grievance-mongering doesn't help debate, and indulging it just makes it worse. If HYUFD's comment really was "amazingly disrespectful" to him and his wife then what hope is there for any political conversations at all?

Point of order

Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath, it is a fact

The drone issue in Wales is widely reported here and has not be denied by the Welsh government who are committed to increasing council tax bands, a policy I favour

williamglenn said:

Europe needs more Melonis.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/russia-to-be-forced-to-surrender-if-not-accepting-terms-of-peace-italian-prime-minister/ar-BB1ojYcw

Russia will be forced to surrender if the Kremlin does not agree to the terms of peace, according to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during the broadcast of the second plenary session of the peace summit.

"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...

What's the logic there ?

I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).

Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).

To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.

Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).

Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.

Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.

Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.

25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.

From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics.
I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.

So:
Is there a vacancy? No.
What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%

Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%

If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%

So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%

Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1

I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.

Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3724721#Comment_3724721

Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars.
Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.

I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.

For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.

Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.

The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.

It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.

You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.

You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc".
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.

HYUFD said:

Farage says Reform will raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2 million

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Today's image from spies in East Hampshire

I live barely a mile from there so will take a look later.

TimS said:

bondegezou said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.

It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?

Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.

Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.

In real elections not so. The Lib Dems won more council seats than the Tories in May. Reform scarcely won any at all. If we went only on polling then Farage would expect 4x as much coverage as the SNP and 10x that of Plaid or any NI party.

Cookie said:

Fairliered said:

Omnium said:

The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.

I am planning to watch the results on ITV, but if Reform do badly, I will turn over to the BBC to watch the presenters’ faces. I would expect Kuenssberg to look like a melted wellie.

Eh?
I find the idea that the BBC are backing Reform astonishing.

Watching the BBC announce the results of the Brexit referendum was like watching them announce the death of the Queen. Even the coverage of the results of the 2019 GE had the sombre air of a death. The BBC's worldview ranges from hard left to centrist. Arguably there might be one or two who quietly favour Cameronite conservatism, but you get no further right than that.

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

bondegezou said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.

It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?

Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.

Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.

In real elections not so. The Lib Dems won more council seats than the Tories in May. Reform scarcely won any at all. If we went only on polling then Farage would expect 4x as much coverage as the SNP and 10x that of Plaid or any NI party.

Sure, there is a debate about whether it’s polling or seats won/likely to be won that should matter more. The LibDems seem highly likely to get many more seats, although Reform UK, the spreads suggest, are on course to get more seats than the Greens. Personally, I think if a lot of your viewers(/listeners/readers) are intending to vote Reform UK, it’s appropriate to have a lot of coverage of Reform UK.

There’s also a complication around parties that are popular in just one of the four nations, which is partly handled by regional coverage being different.

nico679 said:

Will the useless media actually ask Farage some tough questions.

Leaving the ECHR breaches the GFA , risks losing security co-operation with the EU .

wooliedyed said:

And we're off in a new week
NEW: @RestisPolitics / JLP poll, 14th-16th June

*Reform UK at record high, Tories at record low; Labour lead at 17 points*

Change on last week in brackets

LAB: 40% (-1)
CON: 23% (-1)
REF: 18% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
GRN: 5% (-)

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc".
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.

I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Reform to tax businesses which employ overseas workers and deport illegal immigrants

That must be a niche market surely? How many businesses are there which employ overseas workers and deport illegal immigrants.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Toffees really did dodge a bullet.

In a new motion filed at the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, 777’s Josh Wander & Steven Pasko are accused of “operating a massive, Madoff-scale scheme of fraud to the tune of many 100s of millions of dollars” & that “it has become clear that the scheme is falling apart.”

https://x.com/pbsportswriter/status/1802653341811454326

Who would have guessed that a bloke who got banged up for drug smuggling might be a bit dodgy.

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc".
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.

I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.

Only sometimes.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc".
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.

I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.

Only sometimes.

Do you ever think maybe it's just that you can't like somebody's posts all the time?

Sometimes you write utter tripe, sometimes Richard does. TSE does most of the time etc.

You take things a bit too seriously old bean.

TheScreamingEagles said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Nigelb said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Oh good the trans debate is back. Yawn.

It was in response to politicians performing their public catechisms - "I believe that... etc".
Your response was equally yawn-worthy to some of us.

I am YawnBatteryHorse after all NigelB.

Only sometimes.

Do you ever think maybe it's just that you can't like somebody's posts all the time?

Sometimes you write utter tripe, sometimes Richard does. TSE does most of the time etc.

You take things a bit too seriously old bean.

The best of tripe I can recall is by IncorrectHorseBattery when he became convinced that Silicon Valley Bank UK was going to get a taxpayer bailout and became abusive to those of us who worked in Financial Services who said there would be no bailout thanks to ring fencing.

wooliedyed said:

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1802670290964455666?s=19
They get an embargoed copy so I think we can assume it's likely there's another crossover given there was one point in it last time with them.

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

Omnium said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

Farooq said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...

What's the logic there ?

I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).

Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).

To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.

Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).

Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.

Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.

Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.

25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.

From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics.
I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.

Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.

...

I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.

I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.

Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.

You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?

She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.

Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.

Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.

Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.

But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.

False precision but 50/1 for me.

Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.

Harris is the better and calmer choice.

As I noted in the last thread it's not like replacing a party leader in the UK; a party unseating its own sitting president isn't a few party leaders deciding his time's up - it would need a broad movement across all Democrats (and there's no sign of such consensus).
And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.

The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.

It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.

The other thing about this is: Say he decided not to run at this point. What's the story? He's incapable of running for president, but for the next 8 months he remains capable of *being* president? It doesn't make sense. What if something happens and they someone to do some presidenting?

If were to decide he couldn't make it to the election, the move would be to stand down *as president*. Then you've got a new president, Kamala Harris, and she is obviously the candidate.

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

Big_G_NorthWales said:

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...

If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.

Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower

Big_G_NorthWales said:

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...

If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.

Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower

Big_G_NorthWales said:

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...

If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.

Thank you for your kind suggestion but at present with the help of strategically placed grips I can still get in and out the bath but I cannot stand in it under the shower

wooliedyed said:

TimS said:

wooliedyed said:

TimS said:

wooliedyed said:

JL partners with
41 ConRef
54 LLG
Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting

Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.

First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.

Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.

What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %.
Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red

Selebian said:

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13537771/Are-listening-Keir-Tony-Blair-questions-politicians-muddle-common-sense-transgender-issues-ex-PM-states-woman-vagina-man-penis.html

SKS is a penis.

Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men.
Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.

The question is, how do we do that?
As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.

I am liking the 'brighten the horses' typo - you'd be against them draping horses in LGBTQ+ colours then?

MisterBedfordshire said:

Selebian said:

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13537771/Are-listening-Keir-Tony-Blair-questions-politicians-muddle-common-sense-transgender-issues-ex-PM-states-woman-vagina-man-penis.html

SKS is a penis.

Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men.
Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.

The question is, how do we do that?
As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.

I am liking the 'brighten the horses' typo - you'd be against them draping horses in LGBTQ+ colours then?

You would need the correct horse battery to brighten the horses.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

We need far more meat on the bones from Labour about planning reform. What will this mean in practice?

As somebody who has worked extensively in the telecoms industry, I can chime in on what I would change there:

Allow the building of masts in urban areas under permitted development rights

Increase the maximum height of masts in urban areas to an unlimited reasonable height above buildings

Allow extending the height of existing masts without any extra permission up to a higher height (+-30 metres)

Allow building of masts in rural areas up to a maximum of 50-60 metres and allow extension of existing masts up to this height without permission

Allow the building of small cells under permitted development rights in all areas

Allow building of masts/sites next to roads under permitted development rights

This would increase coverage significantly but would actually reduce the number of masts needed as a taller height increases the coverage radius a large amount.

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

Surely raising IC threshold to £20k would be eye wateringly expensive.

The IFS say it would cost £31bn to increase the personal allowance by £2,500 to £15,070...

williamglenn said:

wooliedyed said:

TimS said:

wooliedyed said:

TimS said:

wooliedyed said:

JL partners with
41 ConRef
54 LLG
Which is out of line with others but makes things a bit more interesting

Yes, highest RefCon/ConRef combination for a long time. It implies Ref are getting some votes from other anti-Tory parties (LD down 2 in this poll for example) and perhaps the bloc effect is weakening.

First Post crossover poll too. I think a big anti politics effect is starting to show up.

Very much following the pattern of the Cleggasm in 2010. But somewhat more subdued. The Lib Dems had a few polls hitting 30%.

What will concern the Tories the most (apart from being miles behind) is that not a single poll in over a week has had then gaining %, all level or in decline. Labour mainly in decline but a couple with added %.
Suggests DKs breaking for Reform and very few coming 'home' to blue or indeed red

There was a real tetchiness in Mandelson's remarks about Reform over the weekend, as if he thought it was the Tories' job to soak up their votes (and therefore keep safe Labour seats safe).

The more the Tories collapse, the harder it becomes for Labour in areas that they are used to taking for granted.

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?

I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.

I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.

You're having a Laffer, of course they don't.

The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983.
Turbo-Trussnomics

Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.

Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

The other demographic their imaginary prospectus is aimed at is LuckyGuy1983.
Turbo-Trussnomics

Labour’s best attack line on Reform (assuming they want one - they may be happy to see them eroding Tory swingback) is surely that they are Tories on steroids.

Calling them Tories on steroids is hardly likely to hamper that erosion ?

Nigelb said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Reform would raise income tax threshold to £20k and VAT threshold to £150k.

Welfare claimants who refuse two job offers would lose their benefits

Do they have a plan for how to pay for all this, or is it just Trussonomics on steroids?

I'm as pro business economically as they come - but the last time the Tufton Street brigade's ideas got anywhere near implementation without proper planning, we had a full blown economic crisis on our hands.

I'm actually increasingly worried we will see a slow burner crisis under the next few years with Labour, tbh. Capital flight and brain drain. Not an immediate crisis, but a slow reduction in tax take and productivity decline.

You're having a Laffer, of course they don't.

The point about Labour is a more interesting one. Do they have any real growth plans of any significance ?

Casino_Royale said:

I've just done my unconscious bias training.

Report coming later.