Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
In 1988 VAT was charged at 15 per cent, and not at all on Greggs pasties.
I remember the shock when Howe increased it to 15%. As always in taxation the unthinkable becomes the new normal all too quickly.
After Mrs Thatcher had denied plans to double VAT. Technically, she was correct, as it rose from 8 to 15 per cent.
Her greatest trick was persuading the body politic that only income tax counts.
To be fair, 8% was a nuisance to retailers in the days before calculators were freely available. 10% was much easier!
I remember 17.5%
Seven Fooooorty sevenths
Actually that wasn’t as bad as 8; 10%, plus half, plus half again!
Is that easier than 1%, double it, double it and double it again?
Calculating two halfs is two calculations, then two additions is two more. Three doublings seems simpler to me.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
Not if everyone votes Tory for the same reason as you.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
No matter how much is given to the poor there are always demands to give them more.
For some reason the poor have become sanctified as if they were cows in India.
A significant proportion of the populace go through every year of their lives being a net recipient of government spending.
I remember hearing that is what all because of the lack of jobs and opportunities.
Well in the last few years the jobs and opportunities have been available, so available that millions want to come from the third world to take them.
The biggest problem is that people are rational.
If a poor person part time currently and is working and faces a marginal tax of close to 100%, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
If their bills will go up if they do that work, so they're now out of pocket, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
We don't tax people who earn £130k at a marginal tax rate of about 100% so why do we tax people on £13k at that rate?
Fix that, let people keep more of their own income if they work more hours, and they will do so. And we'll spend less as a result.
In fact, I found that a significant proportion of people are acting irrationality by working too much. There are plenty of people who qualify for UC who don't know it; people with disabilities who refuse to claim.
Particularly the case with add-on benefits where the eligibility isn't obvious. It's only where the benefit is the norm and universal (funded childcare, for example) where you get decent uptake.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Fair enough. Good for you. And well argued. One of the most bizarre developments was @Big_G_NorthWales voting Tory despite wanting the Tories out. That one I still haven’t get my head around.
My original plan to vote Labour has been abandoned because the Labour party have chosen a drop in from London to run in my constituency (leafy, rural, SW Wiltshire). Its frankly rather insulting. So its almost certainly going to be the nice Lib Dem candidate (a consultant at the local hospital). As an aside, as I crossed Morrison's carpark on Saturday a mid thirties lady was conversing with a friend "I just can't vote for Keir Starmer", she said. From the look of her, I suspect Starmer is not left wing enough, but that may be overthinking it...
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Ok I get he had a deathly pallor at the debate which wasn’t great. But one of the most absurd things about Trump is the orange spray fake tan - why the F would you copy that, making you look as weird as Trump but much less coherent?
I wonder if there are people in the Biden circle who know he’s not fit; and they’re in despair; and they’re quietly sabotaging him in the hope he quits
Like the Labour plant in CCHQ directing Rishi's election campaign? Probably not. But there could be someone in Biden's circle who'd prefer, say, Newsom.
The idea that an American president has mislaid a few marbles is not new, and was suspected of both Reagan and GW Bush.
“NEW: President Biden reads “end of quote” while rocking his fresh new Trump-inspired orange spray tan.
“Justice Sotomayor's dissent today. She hears what she said. She said, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law with fear for our democracy. I dissent.”
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
No matter how much is given to the poor there are always demands to give them more.
For some reason the poor have become sanctified as if they were cows in India.
A significant proportion of the populace go through every year of their lives being a net recipient of government spending.
I remember hearing that is what all because of the lack of jobs and opportunities.
Well in the last few years the jobs and opportunities have been available, so available that millions want to come from the third world to take them.
The biggest problem is that people are rational.
If a poor person part time currently and is working and faces a marginal tax of close to 100%, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
If their bills will go up if they do that work, so they're now out of pocket, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
We don't tax people who earn £130k at a marginal tax rate of about 100% so why do we tax people on £13k at that rate?
Fix that, let people keep more of their own income if they work more hours, and they will do so. And we'll spend less as a result.
This is the problem of giving more handouts to the poor instead of reducing their marginal rate of tax on earnings.
Yet the demands are always to do more of the first rather than the second.
From the Vogue interview with Jill Biden. A glimpse of why she might be keen for hubby to cling on
Hideous Vogue prose but it gives a picture
“I If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It’s as if the world is holding its breath. For you. Also, rules don’t apply.”
“At Nine Mile, an entourage of 30 or so are noisily hustling to follow a trim, blond woman in a pristine white suit as she strides nonchalantly past clanging, gurgling brewing vats, aiming for a back office. This is my first glimpse of first lady Dr. Jill Biden: Exiting the sealed chamber of power into the middle of America, a vision of calm amid utter cacophony.”
Maybe she is thinking that if he wins by some miracle she won’t need to look after him? He will have wall to wall carers and doctors so she can crack on with her life whilst he gets wheeled to the White House podium on a parcel trolley like an unmasked Hannibal Lecter and wheeled back to the private wing of the White House after the meds boosted national pep talk.
Could the Dems offer her a sweetener, Dowager First Lady kinda position?
Someone helpfully referred to Edith Wilson yesterday. She was basically acting president after Woodrow had a serious stroke. Scope for another Macbeth themed header here.
Sounds like a plan.
Who would have a stab at a Macbeth themed header?
Is that an obscure reference to the Scottish play? Or is this about the 11th century King of Alba.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
It doesn't matter what the precise excuse is, we've seen you do this numerous times. The Tories do something that you sternly declare is beyond the pale - they have lost your vote! And then, some time later - normally after a longer and more credible interval than on this occasion - you find some excuse you can latch upon for excusing your vote returning to the Tories.
It is hard to take your pronouncements on whether the Tories deserve your vote that seriously when this pattern has been repeated so often.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
In 1988 VAT was charged at 15 per cent, and not at all on Greggs pasties.
I remember the shock when Howe increased it to 15%. As always in taxation the unthinkable becomes the new normal all too quickly.
After Mrs Thatcher had denied plans to double VAT. Technically, she was correct, as it rose from 8 to 15 per cent.
Her greatest trick was persuading the body politic that only income tax counts.
To be fair, 8% was a nuisance to retailers in the days before calculators were freely available. 10% was much easier!
I remember 17.5%
Seven Fooooorty sevenths
Actually that wasn’t as bad as 8; 10%, plus half, plus half again!
Is that easier than 1%, double it, double it and double it again?
Calculating two halfs is two calculations, then two additions is two more. Three doublings seems simpler to me.
Just thinking back to when I had to do it!
Indeed, but there's good mental tricks for many ways to do things.
Just thinking mentally if I want to do 8% of £13 then that's doubling 13p three times. So 26p, 52p, £1.04 ... easy.
17.5% of £13 my mental maths is its £1.30 plus 65p is 1.95 plus 33p (depending on rounding) is 2.28 ... easy, but not as easy.
Maybe it's just because I've worked with binary, but I've always found 2^n pretty easy.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
And identified the method by which Labour could lose an election they shall win. Don't blame Labour, blame the voters.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
No matter how much is given to the poor there are always demands to give them more.
For some reason the poor have become sanctified as if they were cows in India.
A significant proportion of the populace go through every year of their lives being a net recipient of government spending.
I remember hearing that is what all because of the lack of jobs and opportunities.
Well in the last few years the jobs and opportunities have been available, so available that millions want to come from the third world to take them.
The biggest problem is that people are rational.
If a poor person part time currently and is working and faces a marginal tax of close to 100%, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
If their bills will go up if they do that work, so they're now out of pocket, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
We don't tax people who earn £130k at a marginal tax rate of about 100% so why do we tax people on £13k at that rate?
Fix that, let people keep more of their own income if they work more hours, and they will do so. And we'll spend less as a result.
This is the problem of giving more handouts to the poor instead of reducing their marginal rate of tax on earnings.
Yet the demands are always to do more of the first rather than the second.
Not from me. I've consistently said we need to do the second.
But not general taxation, it's the taper rate that needs fixing. It should be merged into general taxation so everyone is on the same tax rate.
Cutting general tax rates doesn't solve the taper issue.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
No matter how much is given to the poor there are always demands to give them more.
For some reason the poor have become sanctified as if they were cows in India.
A significant proportion of the populace go through every year of their lives being a net recipient of government spending.
I remember hearing that is what all because of the lack of jobs and opportunities.
Well in the last few years the jobs and opportunities have been available, so available that millions want to come from the third world to take them.
The biggest problem is that people are rational.
If a poor person part time currently and is working and faces a marginal tax of close to 100%, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
If their bills will go up if they do that work, so they're now out of pocket, what rational reason do they have to do that work?
We don't tax people who earn £130k at a marginal tax rate of about 100% so why do we tax people on £13k at that rate?
Fix that, let people keep more of their own income if they work more hours, and they will do so. And we'll spend less as a result.
In fact, I found that a significant proportion of people are acting irrationality by working too much. There are plenty of people who qualify for UC who don't know it; people with disabilities who refuse to claim.
Particularly the case with add-on benefits where the eligibility isn't obvious. It's only where the benefit is the norm and universal (funded childcare, for example) where you get decent uptake.
Partly because of Tory and media demonization of the benefit takers as scroungers - and the way in which HMG have adopted the workhouse ethos, so that simply taking benefits is itself a huge disbenefit to one's life. We were discussing the way in which disability benefit assessments were conducted the other day. Another example would be the absurd marginal rates of income change with certain allowances.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Fair enough. Good for you. And well argued. One of the most bizarre developments was @Big_G_NorthWales voting Tory despite wanting the Tories out. That one I still haven’t get my head around.
My original plan to vote Labour has been abandoned because the Labour party have chosen a drop in from London to run in my constituency (leafy, rural, SW Wiltshire). Its frankly rather insulting. So its almost certainly going to be the nice Lib Dem candidate (a consultant at the local hospital). As an aside, as I crossed Morrison's carpark on Saturday a mid thirties lady was conversing with a friend "I just can't vote for Keir Starmer", she said. From the look of her, I suspect Starmer is not left wing enough, but that may be overthinking it...
He’s neither Left enough or Remain enough for me, but given the way my constituency seems to be going, according to Electoral Calculus, Labour it’s going to be. Despite the Labour candidate not being the most inspiring candidate.
From the Vogue interview with Jill Biden. A glimpse of why she might be keen for hubby to cling on
Hideous Vogue prose but it gives a picture
“I If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It’s as if the world is holding its breath. For you. Also, rules don’t apply.”
“At Nine Mile, an entourage of 30 or so are noisily hustling to follow a trim, blond woman in a pristine white suit as she strides nonchalantly past clanging, gurgling brewing vats, aiming for a back office. This is my first glimpse of first lady Dr. Jill Biden: Exiting the sealed chamber of power into the middle of America, a vision of calm amid utter cacophony.”
Maybe she is thinking that if he wins by some miracle she won’t need to look after him? He will have wall to wall carers and doctors so she can crack on with her life whilst he gets wheeled to the White House podium on a parcel trolley like an unmasked Hannibal Lecter and wheeled back to the private wing of the White House after the meds boosted national pep talk.
Could the Dems offer her a sweetener, Dowager First Lady kinda position?
Someone helpfully referred to Edith Wilson yesterday. She was basically acting president after Woodrow had a serious stroke. Scope for another Macbeth themed header here.
Sounds like a plan.
Who would have a stab at a Macbeth themed header?
Is that an obscure reference to the Scottish play? Or is this about the 11th century King of Alba.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
It is possible to vote Conservative because you believe that Labour has a broken business model - it will always load far too much onto the private sector to fund an unsustainable public sector. (And then when they get thrown out for breaking the economy, they will claim it is all about "Tory cuts" - rather than a reversion to what we can afford.)
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
And identified the method by which Labour could lose an election they shall win. Don't blame Labour, blame the voters.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Fair enough. Good for you. And well argued. One of the most bizarre developments was @Big_G_NorthWales voting Tory despite wanting the Tories out. That one I still haven’t get my head around.
My original plan to vote Labour has been abandoned because the Labour party have chosen a drop in from London to run in my constituency (leafy, rural, SW Wiltshire). Its frankly rather insulting. So its almost certainly going to be the nice Lib Dem candidate (a consultant at the local hospital). As an aside, as I crossed Morrison's carpark on Saturday a mid thirties lady was conversing with a friend "I just can't vote for Keir Starmer", she said. From the look of her, I suspect Starmer is not left wing enough, but that may be overthinking it...
He’s neither Left enough or Remain enough for me, but given the way my constituency seems to be going, according to Electoral Calculus, Labour it’s going to be. Despite the Labour candidate not being the most inspiring candidate.
I'm happy for Starmer to be PM with a decent majority. Country does need a change and all that. I remember how exciting 1997 was, genuinely felt like a renewal. But I am seriously pissed off that Labour couldn't find someone from the local area to stand in the election. She may be a wonderful person and a great candidate but she is a Londoner. What can she possibly know about the travails of people in SW wilts? She will probably ask about the tube...*
*This is undoubtedly unfair, but I am genuinely pissed off.
From the Vogue interview with Jill Biden. A glimpse of why she might be keen for hubby to cling on
Hideous Vogue prose but it gives a picture
“I If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It’s as if the world is holding its breath. For you. Also, rules don’t apply.”
“At Nine Mile, an entourage of 30 or so are noisily hustling to follow a trim, blond woman in a pristine white suit as she strides nonchalantly past clanging, gurgling brewing vats, aiming for a back office. This is my first glimpse of first lady Dr. Jill Biden: Exiting the sealed chamber of power into the middle of America, a vision of calm amid utter cacophony.”
Maybe she is thinking that if he wins by some miracle she won’t need to look after him? He will have wall to wall carers and doctors so she can crack on with her life whilst he gets wheeled to the White House podium on a parcel trolley like an unmasked Hannibal Lecter and wheeled back to the private wing of the White House after the meds boosted national pep talk.
Could the Dems offer her a sweetener, Dowager First Lady kinda position?
Someone helpfully referred to Edith Wilson yesterday. She was basically acting president after Woodrow had a serious stroke. Scope for another Macbeth themed header here.
Sounds like a plan.
Who would have a stab at a Macbeth themed header?
Is that an obscure reference to the Scottish play? Or is this about the 11th century King of Alba.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
It is possible to vote Conservative because you believe that Labour has a broken business model - it will always load far too much onto the private sector to fund an unsustainable public sector. (And then when they get thrown out for breaking the economy, they will claim it is all about "Tory cuts" - rather than a reversion to what we can afford.)
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
Unfortunately the Conservatives then take it to the opposite extreme with a desire for unearned income, retierism and crony capitalism.
Wealth needs to be regarded as something which is created by work in a productive economy not received via ownership in a stagnant economy.
“NEW: President Biden reads “end of quote” while rocking his fresh new Trump-inspired orange spray tan.
“Justice Sotomayor's dissent today. She hears what she said. She said, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law with fear for our democracy. I dissent.”
Erm, I strongly suspect it was intended Biden use the words, "end of quote", since he is quoting one of the judges' dissent and not his own.
You make the same error as some of those who decry Trump without realising when he is joking.
Perhaps. Except Biden has form for doing exactly this
That he's been reading 'end of quote' from the teleprompter for years is evidence that he's deteriorating rapidly?
Have you ever thought to engage your brain the size of a planet for a millisecond before reposting whatever you've just read on twitter?
Actually, that is commendable precision: it saves the sort of shite one gets from idiots who complain if they think someone is plagiarising. I'd do it myself at a presentation, or something similar.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
It is possible to vote Conservative because you believe that Labour has a broken business model - it will always load far too much onto the private sector to fund an unsustainable public sector. (And then when they get thrown out for breaking the economy, they will claim it is all about "Tory cuts" - rather than a reversion to what we can afford.)
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
It is possible to vote Conservative because you believe that Labour has a broken business model - it will always load far too much onto the private sector to fund an unsustainable public sector. (And then when they get thrown out for breaking the economy, they will claim it is all about "Tory cuts" - rather than a reversion to what we can afford.)
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
Even at its highest your argument does not point towards voting Tory. Their record in regard to smaller and sustainable state, greater wealth creation by setting private enterprise free is not great.
No party for years has set out the case for an actually smaller state - one which specifies which big areas it is currently spending money on that are going to go.
A small state costed Tory manifesto would be fascinating. When are we going to get one?
Wimbledon is likely to see the slaughter of the Brits today. No fewer that 12 have their first round matches (assuming Murray is going to play). Among the men only Jack Draper can really be said to be in form - Cam Norrie has been all over the place this year. A few of the others may do ok today - Paul Jubb and Billy Harris might be winners. Katie Boulter should also be ok. Would not be surprised to be down to three or four Brits left after today.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
I'm a Lib Dem supporter and would normally not consider voting Conservative, especially not for the current lot, but in a situation that was a two-way fight between the Tories and Reform, I would hold my nose and vote Conservative. Extremist parties like Reform and George Galloway's lot should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and I'd vote for any of the three centre(ish) parties if that was what was needed to keep them at bay.
I can't say I really understand your decision, though. Under our FPTP voting system, the total number of votes cast is immaterial. In your case, resident in a what appears to be a two-way fight between Labour and Conservative, I don't know why you wouldn't vote Lib Dem unless you particularly wanted to try to stop Labour from winning the seat.
From the Vogue interview with Jill Biden. A glimpse of why she might be keen for hubby to cling on
Hideous Vogue prose but it gives a picture
“I If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It’s as if the world is holding its breath. For you. Also, rules don’t apply.”
“At Nine Mile, an entourage of 30 or so are noisily hustling to follow a trim, blond woman in a pristine white suit as she strides nonchalantly past clanging, gurgling brewing vats, aiming for a back office. This is my first glimpse of first lady Dr. Jill Biden: Exiting the sealed chamber of power into the middle of America, a vision of calm amid utter cacophony.”
Maybe she is thinking that if he wins by some miracle she won’t need to look after him? He will have wall to wall carers and doctors so she can crack on with her life whilst he gets wheeled to the White House podium on a parcel trolley like an unmasked Hannibal Lecter and wheeled back to the private wing of the White House after the meds boosted national pep talk.
Could the Dems offer her a sweetener, Dowager First Lady kinda position?
Someone helpfully referred to Edith Wilson yesterday. She was basically acting president after Woodrow had a serious stroke. Scope for another Macbeth themed header here.
Sounds like a plan.
Who would have a stab at a Macbeth themed header?
Is that an obscure reference to the Scottish play? Or is this about the 11th century King of Alba.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
“ I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle”.
What a load of pompous bollocks. Why do you want to think this? Do you want to think this of all other parties’ voters? Did Starmer vote Labour in 2019 out of principle because his statements on Corbyn recently would suggest not.
Would you be saying this to BigG if he was pro Labour doing this? Are you just having a dig at Big G because he’s a bit of a soft target and it makes you feel big having a little victory?
Why do you even care if he has moral authority or not - I’m worried you think anyone on here has moral authority - it’s a website that largely anonymous people post crap and thoughts on and not a statement of their worth.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
The simplest way out of the triple lock, politically) is the quadruple lock.
Tie the state pension to the tax free allowance for income tax. So it can’t go past that.
Which will tend to force the tax free allowance up. But will act as a drag anchor.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What an interesting header - thank-you @viewcode .
Have you bet online at all this time?
I don't bet online. Partly on principle (fuck off government), partly because I'm the kind of person who havers back-and-forth and will, if given free reign, see profit leached away thru frequent transaction costs (the latter happened when I did currency speculation: a nominal profit was wiped out by transaction costs). The discipline imposed by having to plan ahead and catch a taxi into town to bet prevents this. But, as the article says (or should have), most of the political bets are now online and there's no point in me nagging the shop staff if it's just not there on the screen for them. So it's a real quandary.
I get the impression that most people on PB have grown up/acclimatised to online transactions, and so may not find this a problem. But it's a real thing for me. Rcs1000 refers to it as a "phobia", and there's some truth in this (but not wholly: it's cognitive stress, not phobia: different thing). As street betting slowly dies, my ability to bet on politics will become more and more stressed.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
Or Labour.
I'm voting Labour for only the second time ever. Literally because they're promising planning reform and principles over party.
If Tories want centre right voters back, they need to appeal to them.
Simply being a high tax, high spend, nasty about people who want spending, nasty about foreigners but not nasty enough to stop migration party is appealing to about nobody.
Yes. The most important figure in the polling won't (I think) change much, whatever the outcome. Between 75 and 80% of voters don't want a Tory government including several million usually loyal supporters. That's gigantic. This justifies a landslide against them.
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
It is possible to vote Conservative because you believe that Labour has a broken business model - it will always load far too much onto the private sector to fund an unsustainable public sector. (And then when they get thrown out for breaking the economy, they will claim it is all about "Tory cuts" - rather than a reversion to what we can afford.)
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
'Wealthy' is of course a very vulgar non-U term. 'Rich', please.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
The fact that this country can't get postal votes shows how much damage the conservatives have done to this country over the past 14 years.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Mr. Eabhal, in a democracy, a voter doesn't need an excuse for voting a particular way. A voter can vote in any way they wish.
Of course. It's whether BigG can excuse himself. I would guess there will be lots of traditional Tories struggling with the same question all the way to the polling booth.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
The triple lock costs us nothing unless you say pensions will not have risen without it by the same amount in any given year. In most years, this is not the case.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
The fact that this country can't get postal votes shows how much damage the conservatives have done to this country over the past 14 years.
I'm not sure if it can be directly tied to them, but it's part of the general feeling that nothing works very well anymore which hurts them regardless.
Wimbledon is likely to see the slaughter of the Brits today. No fewer that 12 have their first round matches (assuming Murray is going to play). Among the men only Jack Draper can really be said to be in form - Cam Norrie has been all over the place this year. A few of the others may do ok today - Paul Jubb and Billy Harris might be winners. Katie Boulter should also be ok. Would not be surprised to be down to three or four Brits left after today.
Speaking of Brits (or people of our archipelago), not win in Turin for Cavendish yesterday. Up in the mountains today, so next chance will be tomorrow in Saint Vulbas.
Side note to the side note - a milestone as we saw the first black African Tour stage winner yesterday, Biniam Girmay from (cycling mad) Eritrea.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
The fact that this country can't get postal votes shows how much damage the conservatives have done to this country over the past 14 years.
How easy would it be to bring a legal case if you are effectively denied a postal vote? Presumably at that level (300,000 votes) there will be constituencies where the result might have been affected
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
I appreciate your comments and it was a decision my wife and I reasoned through rightly or wrongly as we saw it as the best way to vote against Reform
As you say I do espouse the conservative values you outline and no doubt you and others will appreciate the despair I and many other conservatives have felt over the last few years since partygate and Truss and the failure of Sunak to show any political awareness
Anyway from Friday we will have a new government and maybe Starmer will surprise on the upside, but more than anything Farage insults my inner emotions and I hope he and his party do not gain traction this week
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Mr. Eabhal, in a democracy, a voter doesn't need an excuse for voting a particular way. A voter can vote in any way they wish.
Of course. It's whether BigG can excuse himself. I would guess there will be lots of traditional Tories struggling with the same question all the way to the polling booth.
How about all the Labour voters who voted for Corbyn last time and are now voting for Starmer? A fundamentally different party so clearly many of those people who were pro Corbyn style Labour will have had to question and change their choices many times before staying with Labour this election.
There are going to be Labour voters who voted for Corbyn last time who probably didn’t support him but voted Labour for reasons of stop Boris, anyone but Tory etc and will have found that they got their party back eventually but did what they thought was right.
The only difference between them and Big pg is that he made the mistake of writing his political journey and dilemmas on a political blog - I know, crazy right that someone would discuss their politics on a politics site.
Maybe better not to hammer people for showing their working so everyone gets a better insight than scare people off from being honest by a pile-on.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Nick Ferrari believes a lot of things.
As does @Mexicanpete – although often he doesn't actually believe them he just says them to garner attention. "Look at ME!"
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
You can't really compare Biden's polling numbers (versus Trump) against those of a theoretical nominee though. You're just not measuring the same thing.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Nick Ferrari believes a lot of things.
It's clearly not a gamechanger, but I do get a sense this week that the game is evolving a bit. Reform are fading, there's a sense of apathy settling over Labour support, and the Tories are finally starting to cut through with their supermajority stuff. Plus they've not had a big disaster for at least a week. People have started to forget the chaos or the crumbling infrastructure. Those loyal but disaffected Tories are finding their excuses to come home.
My original prediction of Con 31% doesn't look so far fetched now.
Caveat: this is the inevitable fear talking. The conservatives are 9 wickets down in the second innings with 100 runs to get and the tailenders have hit a couple of boundaries.
One things we do not do is discuss the death of cash.
Speaking professionally, withdrawing more than £100 plus flags up on most bank systems as a risk if it happens enough times.
I go to the cash point every week, withdraw the amount of spending money I need for the week, and buy food and travel and things. My commuting costs are around a grand a month. So I take more than £100 out of the account at least once a week, and have done for decades now...
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
In 1988 VAT was charged at 15 per cent, and not at all on Greggs pasties.
I remember the shock when Howe increased it to 15%. As always in taxation the unthinkable becomes the new normal all too quickly.
After Mrs Thatcher had denied plans to double VAT. Technically, she was correct, as it rose from 8 to 15 per cent.
Her greatest trick was persuading the body politic that only income tax counts.
To be fair, 8% was a nuisance to retailers in the days before calculators were freely available. 10% was much easier!
I remember 17.5%
Seven Fooooorty sevenths
Actually that wasn’t as bad as 8; 10%, plus half, plus half again!
Is that easier than 1%, double it, double it and double it again?
Calculating two halfs is two calculations, then two additions is two more. Three doublings seems simpler to me.
Just thinking back to when I had to do it!
Indeed, but there's good mental tricks for many ways to do things.
Just thinking mentally if I want to do 8% of £13 then that's doubling 13p three times. So 26p, 52p, £1.04 ... easy.
17.5% of £13 my mental maths is its £1.30 plus 65p is 1.95 plus 33p (depending on rounding) is 2.28 ... easy, but not as easy.
Maybe it's just because I've worked with binary, but I've always found 2^n pretty easy.
If you think in binary... have you just outed yourself as an AI?
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Of the 8 Dem alternatives, Newsom is the only straight white male christian? But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
It’s another good example of what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Although the overall tax rate is high lower earners have done much, much better and are paying less. Osborne’s broadest shoulders are bearing ever more of the weight.
So far as I can see the government gets almost no credit for this whatsoever. Indeed left wingers are convinced that the poor have been persecuted at the expense of the rich and the greedy Tories meme remains strong.
The proportion of those paying in has fallen with the result that we now have a massive structural deficit. Labour are not walking into anything like what they did in 1997.
In 1988 VAT was charged at 15 per cent, and not at all on Greggs pasties.
I remember the shock when Howe increased it to 15%. As always in taxation the unthinkable becomes the new normal all too quickly.
After Mrs Thatcher had denied plans to double VAT. Technically, she was correct, as it rose from 8 to 15 per cent.
Her greatest trick was persuading the body politic that only income tax counts.
To be fair, 8% was a nuisance to retailers in the days before calculators were freely available. 10% was much easier!
I remember 17.5%
Seven Fooooorty sevenths
Actually that wasn’t as bad as 8; 10%, plus half, plus half again!
Is that easier than 1%, double it, double it and double it again?
Calculating two halfs is two calculations, then two additions is two more. Three doublings seems simpler to me.
Just thinking back to when I had to do it!
Indeed, but there's good mental tricks for many ways to do things.
Just thinking mentally if I want to do 8% of £13 then that's doubling 13p three times. So 26p, 52p, £1.04 ... easy.
17.5% of £13 my mental maths is its £1.30 plus 65p is 1.95 plus 33p (depending on rounding) is 2.28 ... easy, but not as easy.
Maybe it's just because I've worked with binary, but I've always found 2^n pretty easy.
If you think in binary... have you just outed yourself as an AI?
Mind you, maths in binary is the easy bits
On that logic, a Sinclair Spectrum is an AI. But sometimes on PB it seems that some folk think so.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
The triple lock costs us nothing unless you say pensions will not have risen without it by the same amount in any given year. In most years, this is not the case.
The triple locks costs us unless it is all years that pensions will have risen the same with it. By your very use of the term most, that is evidently even in your own head not the case.
Pensions should rise by no more and no less than wages. It is wrong that those who are working for a living should see their wages go up by less than those who are not.
On topic, at least one of the majority high street bookmakers have terminals in where you can can access their online offering without an online account. You load up your money, find your market and place your bet. Not sure of limits or if they replicate 100% of their website offering.
I tried that in one. Their terminal did "in-play" bets, but not "outrights", and the political bets I wanted were under "outrights".
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Quite remarkably ungenerous, unempathetic and just plain wrong. Why post something like this.
BigG is a great asset to this site. Long may he continue posting.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Correct.
'In a hypothetical matchup between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump leads by an average of 6.6 percentage points, according to poll aggregator Real Clear Polling...In an Emerson College poll conducted between February 13 and 14, Trump received 46 percent of the vote while Harris received 43 percent. In the same poll, when Trump was up against California Governor Gavin Newsom, Trump leads by 10 percentage points (46 to 36 percent). Meanwhile, Trump had an even bigger lead in a hypothetical matchup between him and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (45 to 33 percent).
Newsom did even worse against Trump in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted from March 5 to 7. Trump led Newsom by 17 percentage points (51 to 34 percent) in the survey of 912 U.S. likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Meanwhile, former first lady Michelle Obama also trailed behind Trump in a hypothetical matchup (50 to 43 percent).
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's name has also been floated. In a Muhlenberg College poll conducted between November 20 and December 13, 2023, Shapiro lead Trump by 11 points in a hypothetical matchup (48 to 37 percent) in his state.' https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-donald-trump-debate-replace-polls-1918904
So no evidence any alternative Democrat does any better v Trump than Biden and most do worse even now than he does. Shapiro might do better in PA but no US wide polls on him. Biden remains the only Democrat to have beaten Trump, which he did in 2020.
More significant than replacing Biden could well be the outcome of Trump's sentencing next week for his 30 felony convictions. Given his lack of remorse the judge could have jailed him by next Thursday night or at least maybe given him a curfew and put him on probation.
We then have the conventions and any poll bounces from those, the Democrats may get the biggest into the autumn as theirs is last
Mr. Eabhal, in a democracy, a voter doesn't need an excuse for voting a particular way. A voter can vote in any way they wish.
Of course. It's whether BigG can excuse himself. I would guess there will be lots of traditional Tories struggling with the same question all the way to the polling booth.
How about all the Labour voters who voted for Corbyn last time and are now voting for Starmer? A fundamentally different party so clearly many of those people who were pro Corbyn style Labour will have had to question and change their choices many times before staying with Labour this election.
There are going to be Labour voters who voted for Corbyn last time who probably didn’t support him but voted Labour for reasons of stop Boris, anyone but Tory etc and will have found that they got their party back eventually but did what they thought was right.
The only difference between them and Big pg is that he made the mistake of writing his political journey and dilemmas on a political blog - I know, crazy right that someone would discuss their politics on a politics site.
Maybe better not to hammer people for showing their working so everyone gets a better insight than scare people off from being honest by a pile-on.
I'd think the same of anyone who thought Corbyn was a national security risk, repeatedly argued that he was a danger to the UK, and still voted Labour.
What an interesting header - thank-you @viewcode .
Have you bet online at all this time?
I don't bet online. Partly on principle (fuck off government), partly because I'm the kind of person who havers back-and-forth and will, if given free reign, see profit leached away thru frequent transaction costs (the latter happened when I did currency speculation: a nominal profit was wiped out by transaction costs). The discipline imposed by having to plan ahead and catch a taxi into town to bet prevents this. But, as the article says (or should have), most of the political bets are now online and there's no point in me nagging the shop staff if it's just not there on the screen for them. So it's a real quandary.
I get the impression that most people on PB have grown up/acclimatised to online transactions, and so may not find this a problem. But it's a real thing for me. Rcs1000 refers to it as a "phobia", and there's some truth in this (but not wholly: it's cognitive stress, not phobia: different thing). As street betting slowly dies, my ability to bet on politics will become more and more stressed.
The one place I still do cash betting is at the racetrack. I don't have to - I could use betfair as normal on my phone - but I make the effort, get the cash out, compare the boards, swoop in for the extra quarter point at "Dave Dodgy & Co" or whoever, pocket the ticket with the hope of handing it back to Dave a few minutes later for a bigger bunch of notes than I paid for it. It makes no sense, really, but I'm clinging on to a little piece of the old world. I think at 63 I can be forgiven for this.
I basically work every waking hour - 365 days a year. Some of us don’t get holidays
My problem is people don’t see the work so they think I’ve got it easy. Eg when I’m sipping my Kir Breton in sunny Camaret sur Mer, courtesy of the French taxpayer, and staring vaguely and happily at the dolphins in the bay - I’m working. In my head. I’m thinking about that next flint - or the next Gazette piece, or where I can have oysters
It never stops - it’s relentless. And it’s people like me that keep the world turning when everyone else has got their feet up, watching Season 3 of Traitors
I like to call us “the silent heroes”
Whereas I "work" sixty hours a week, but they're actually paying me to train for my holidays
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Just a few days now, and you can get back to telling us why you won't be voting Conservative the next time!
Not surprised. He will play in the Doubles with his brother for a last hurrah. I love him to bits, been a great player. Somewhat unfortunate to be in the era of Federer, Nadal and Jokovic. He may have won more slams if he was in a different era, but its also possible that the need to live with those three made him a better player. Certainly no-one worked harder than him, and that may be partly why his body broke down towards the end.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
“NEW: President Biden reads “end of quote” while rocking his fresh new Trump-inspired orange spray tan.
“Justice Sotomayor's dissent today. She hears what she said. She said, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law with fear for our democracy. I dissent.”
“NEW: President Biden reads “end of quote” while rocking his fresh new Trump-inspired orange spray tan.
“Justice Sotomayor's dissent today. She hears what she said. She said, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law with fear for our democracy. I dissent.”
I see on Guido apparently the Tories have been sending potential reform voters letters from the perspective of someone in 2044 who regretted voting reform.
Um that's very interesting but it's like those whacky comedians who walk round Iraq with a fridge freezer or take an ironing board to the south pole, or like politicians trying to live on the minimum wage. You are online anyway. Nobody is going to hack your Betfair app.
I'm not "online" in the sense you mean. I don't have a single app on my phone. I don't do apps. The bank get quite annoyed at this.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Just a few days now, and you can get back to telling us why you won't be voting Conservative the next time!
You really are rather sad and as a Lib Dem not really a great recruiting sergeant for your cause
I see on Guido apparently the Tories have been sending potential reform voters letters from the perspective of someone in 2044 who regretted voting reform.
That's both hilarious and desperate.
If they had the ability to see into the future, they would have steered clear of Johnson and Truss.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
You can't really compare Biden's polling numbers (versus Trump) against those of a theoretical nominee though. You're just not measuring the same thing.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
What is striking is how well Trump support holds up: 46-48% against anyone, known or unknown. But yes, as I said, plenty of potential to do better (or worse) than Biden.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Of the 8 Dem alternatives, Newsom is the only straight white male christian? But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
I mean yeah, but how is being a straight white male christian an asset in winning the Dem nomination? Especially when you have some delicate questions to answer about why you're passing over your black female VP...
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Can't see how a postal vote fiasco helps the Tories, don't postal votes tend to be relatively Tory dominated ?
My grandson attends a Private School. He may have to leave next year because of the nonsensical Labour VAT fees issue. However yesterday there was a full school debate on the Election. Candidates (6th formers) representing all parties. Guess who won, got the greatest applause etc, yes REFORM. Teachers at two State sector schools have told me the same result at their places of learning.. Omen for the future frightening.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
Rishi of course never attended any of Johnson's 4 pm parties, he was busy photographing them from his office window.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Its genuinely funny, and heartwarming. I love the idea of story telling around fixed points in time (in this case, every friday night the two boys return home to see mum and dad for dinner). I used to have a regular helium delivery every 10 weeks, and I found it amusing that we caught up on each others lives in 10 week blocks. Definite scope for TV drama in that style. (I guess "One Day" has already done this).
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Of the 8 Dem alternatives, Newsom is the only straight white male christian? But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
I mean yeah, but how is being a straight white male christian an asset in winning the Dem nomination? Especially when you have some delicate questions to answer about why you're passing over your black female VP...
The crypto bros love a bit of Newsom ramping in the markets.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
Why don't you vote for the party you most prefer? I know people game the system, but this can apply equally in 'safe' seats. If you know the seat is rock solid Labour - then you can safely vote for your preferred candidate/party?
My grandson attends a Private School. He may have to leave next year because of the nonsensical Labour VAT fees issue. However yesterday there was a full school debate on the Election. Candidates (6th formers) representing all parties. Guess who won, got the greatest applause etc, yes REFORM. Teachers at two State sector schools have told me the same result at their places of learning.. Omen for the future frightening.
Reform offer the equivalent of Brexit, everyone has their favourite unicorn policies but the combined combination simply doesn't work....
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
You can't really compare Biden's polling numbers (versus Trump) against those of a theoretical nominee though. You're just not measuring the same thing.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
What is striking is how well Trump support holds up: 46-48% against anyone, known or unknown. But yes, as I said, plenty of potential to do better (or worse) than Biden.
Hard floor, and hard ceiling for the felon, I think.
No one can really tell how another nominee might do until they're the nominee. Even Harris isn't really a known quantity in that respect.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
Comments
Given that loads of people will vote Tory because they always do and not out of great conviction, I doubt if 10% of voters want a Tory win for affirmative reasons - ie because they are really really good.
Particularly the case with add-on benefits where the eligibility isn't obvious. It's only where the benefit is the norm and universal (funded childcare, for example) where you get decent uptake.
The idea that an American president has mislaid a few marbles is not new, and was suspected of both Reagan and GW Bush.
Have you ever thought to engage your brain the size of a planet for a millisecond before reposting whatever you've just read on twitter?
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
Yet the demands are always to do more of the first rather than the second.
It is hard to take your pronouncements on whether the Tories deserve your vote that seriously when this pattern has been repeated so often.
Just thinking mentally if I want to do 8% of £13 then that's doubling 13p three times. So 26p, 52p, £1.04 ... easy.
17.5% of £13 my mental maths is its £1.30 plus 65p is 1.95 plus 33p (depending on rounding) is 2.28 ... easy, but not as easy.
Maybe it's just because I've worked with binary, but I've always found 2^n pretty easy.
But not general taxation, it's the taper rate that needs fixing. It should be merged into general taxation so everyone is on the same tax rate.
Cutting general tax rates doesn't solve the taper issue.
Despite the Labour candidate not being the most inspiring candidate.
Plus, "wealth" is a vile thing, a word to be spat out - and waved goodbye at Heathrow. Until they realise how many hospital beds the wealthy fund.
Labour refuses to address these issues. So the Conservative offer is more attractive.
And why nothing will change
*This is undoubtedly unfair, but I am genuinely pissed off.
I mean, really...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20JDStW6GPk
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Trump 48 Biden 45
Trump 46 Whitmer 44
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate.
eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden.
FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
Wealth needs to be regarded as something which is created by work in a productive economy not received via ownership in a stagnant economy.
No party for years has set out the case for an actually smaller state - one which specifies which big areas it is currently spending money on that are going to go.
A small state costed Tory manifesto would be fascinating. When are we going to get one?
Wimbledon is likely to see the slaughter of the Brits today. No fewer that 12 have their first round matches (assuming Murray is going to play). Among the men only Jack Draper can really be said to be in form - Cam Norrie has been all over the place this year. A few of the others may do ok today - Paul Jubb and Billy Harris might be winners. Katie Boulter should also be ok. Would not be surprised to be down to three or four Brits left after today.
I can't say I really understand your decision, though. Under our FPTP voting system, the total number of votes cast is immaterial. In your case, resident in a what appears to be a two-way fight between Labour and Conservative, I don't know why you wouldn't vote Lib Dem unless you particularly wanted to try to stop Labour from winning the seat.
What a load of pompous bollocks. Why do you want to think this? Do you want to think this of all other parties’ voters? Did Starmer vote Labour in 2019 out of principle because his statements on Corbyn recently would suggest not.
Would you be saying this to BigG if he was pro Labour doing this? Are you just having a dig at Big G because he’s a bit of a soft target and it makes you feel big having a little victory?
Why do you even care if he has moral authority or not - I’m worried you think anyone on here has moral authority - it’s a website that largely anonymous people post crap and thoughts on and not a statement of their worth.
Tie the state pension to the tax free allowance for income tax. So it can’t go past that.
Which will tend to force the tax free allowance up. But will act as a drag anchor.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
But then, after yesterday the US isn't really a democracy any more.
I get the impression that most people on PB have grown up/acclimatised to online transactions, and so may not find this a problem. But it's a real thing for me. Rcs1000 refers to it as a "phobia", and there's some truth in this (but not wholly: it's cognitive stress, not phobia: different thing). As street betting slowly dies, my ability to bet on politics will become more and more stressed.
Biden 61%
Harris 16%
Newsom 13%
Whitmer 8%
M. Obama 7%
H. Clinton 5%
Buttegeig 2%
Pritzker 2%
https://x.com/timcast/status/1807763457896296694?s=12
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Side note to the side note - a milestone as we saw the first black African Tour stage winner yesterday, Biniam Girmay from (cycling mad) Eritrea.
KABOOM or no KABOOM?
Reject the dark heart of nationalism.
Has there been any the other way?
As you say I do espouse the conservative values you outline and no doubt you and others will appreciate the despair I and many other conservatives have felt over the last few years since partygate and Truss and the failure of Sunak to show any political awareness
Anyway from Friday we will have a new government and maybe Starmer will surprise on the upside, but more than anything Farage insults my inner emotions and I hope he and his party do not gain traction this week
There are going to be Labour voters who voted for Corbyn last time who probably didn’t support him but voted Labour for reasons of stop Boris, anyone but Tory etc and will have found that they got their party back eventually but did what they thought was right.
The only difference between them and Big pg is that he made the mistake of writing his political journey and dilemmas on a political blog - I know, crazy right that someone would discuss their politics on a politics site.
Maybe better not to hammer people for showing their working so everyone gets a better insight than scare people off from being honest by a pile-on.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
My original prediction of Con 31% doesn't look so far fetched now.
Caveat: this is the inevitable fear talking. The conservatives are 9 wickets down in the second innings with 100 runs to get and the tailenders have hit a couple of boundaries.
I'm a statistician, not a drug dealer, Jim
Mind you, maths in binary is the easy bits
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
Pensions should rise by no more and no less than wages. It is wrong that those who are working for a living should see their wages go up by less than those who are not.
BigG is a great asset to this site. Long may he continue posting.
'In a hypothetical matchup between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump leads by an average of 6.6 percentage points, according to poll aggregator Real Clear Polling...In an Emerson College poll conducted between February 13 and 14, Trump received 46 percent of the vote while Harris received 43 percent.
In the same poll, when Trump was up against California Governor Gavin Newsom, Trump leads by 10 percentage points (46 to 36 percent). Meanwhile, Trump had an even bigger lead in a hypothetical matchup between him and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (45 to 33 percent).
Newsom did even worse against Trump in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted from March 5 to 7. Trump led Newsom by 17 percentage points (51 to 34 percent) in the survey of 912 U.S. likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Meanwhile, former first lady Michelle Obama also trailed behind Trump in a hypothetical matchup (50 to 43 percent).
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's name has also been floated. In a Muhlenberg College poll conducted between November 20 and December 13, 2023, Shapiro lead Trump by 11 points in a hypothetical matchup (48 to 37 percent) in his state.'
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-donald-trump-debate-replace-polls-1918904
So no evidence any alternative Democrat does any better v Trump than Biden and most do worse even now than he does. Shapiro might do better in PA but no US wide polls on him. Biden remains the only Democrat to have beaten Trump, which he did in 2020.
More significant than replacing Biden could well be the outcome of Trump's sentencing next week for his 30 felony convictions. Given his lack of remorse the judge could have jailed him by next Thursday night or at least maybe given him a curfew and put him on probation.
We then have the conventions and any poll bounces from those, the Democrats may get the biggest into the autumn as theirs is last
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c7204p2r0dkt?post=asset:621040da-6fd6-4d7f-9213-77e0c5cdce14#post
I'm essentially on holiday all year
I love him to bits, been a great player. Somewhat unfortunate to be in the era of Federer, Nadal and Jokovic. He may have won more slams if he was in a different era, but its also possible that the need to live with those three made him a better player. Certainly no-one worked harder than him, and that may be partly why his body broke down towards the end.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwcploTZbKA#
Oranges, Furniture, Tim Apple, Mike Pounce, Nambia, Thighland, Yo Semites and much more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5x2ZR0DIyM
That's both hilarious and desperate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/starmer-accepted-76k-worth-of-gifts-including-football-and-concert-tickets/ar-BB1pg7ht?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=dae392f64b2246a4a8b6de3fa4f8584c&ei=48
I imagine he doesn't pay benefit in kind on these.
Ferrari: “[Starmer] paid testament to your generosity of spirit. Is there anything you admire about Sir Keir?”
Sunak: “These jobs take a toll and I think he does a very good job of balancing work life and family life and making time for it.”
https://x.com/sturdyAlex/status/1807904340105126119
Teachers at two State sector schools have told me the same result at their places of learning..
Omen for the future frightening.
Rishi of course never attended any of Johnson's 4 pm parties, he was busy photographing them from his office window.
Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who?
So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
I know people game the system, but this can apply equally in 'safe' seats. If you know the seat is rock solid Labour - then you can safely vote for your preferred candidate/party?
It's what I'm doing.
No one can really tell how another nominee might do until they're the nominee.
Even Harris isn't really a known quantity in that respect.