The State of the Union Week 2 – politicalbetting.com

System · September 9

The State of the Union Week 2 – politicalbetting.com

Not a lot of movement from last week, but what there is has generally been in Trump’s favour. The debate might move the needle a bit more noticeably, but in what direction.

Read the full story here

algarkirk · September 9

First?

Nunu5 · September 9

second?

Nunu5 · September 9

why on earth is the air traffic controller 51% private.

DavidL · September 9

The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.

IanB2 · September 9

Go fourth

I have a suspicion that randomly shooting up people in vehicles on the Interstate is now going tk become another American ‘thing’, like the schools. These yanks do like to copycat.

Just 2,500 miles to reach safety…

IanB2 · September 9

Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

OldKingCole · September 9

Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.

theProle · September 9

OldKingCole said:
Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.

It's like FPTP. Everyone thinks the system needs fixing except whoever benefited from it last, who entirely co-incidentally also always happen to be those who are in a position to do something about it. And thus change never happens.

Stuartinromford · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

And yes, the government will screw up. Because they all do. And right now, the Lib Dems don't look to be large enough, in quite the right place to become the Real Opposition.

But watching some of our right wing friends leap joyfully over Reeves's problems reminds me of every other time an opposition has said "we've really got them this time". Most times, you haven't.

(And the fiscal NIMBYdom we are seeing is making me feel less well-disposed to the right wing press, the Conservative Party and the retired. I accept that I am unusual.)

mercator · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.

Sandpit · September 9

OldKingCole said:
Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.

Unlikely to ever happen. The history and Constitution says that the ultimate power is with the States and flows up to the Federal government, rather than being at the Federal level and devolved to the States as we see in the UK.

viewcode · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

Cite your sources, young sir: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/09/tory-leadership-race-jenrick-badenoch-stride

LostPassword · September 9

It seems reasonable to me to conclude that Harry's had a bounce from her convention, which is now reverting back to the mean, and there's some benefit to Trump from the endorsement from the guy who had his brain eaten by a parasite.

I wouldn't expect the debate to have any lasting impact - unless Harris blows it.

I suppose there's always an outside chance of an Emperor's New Clothes moment, and something finally breaks through to end the hold that Trump has over his supporters, but we're about nine years and waiting on that to happen.

theProle · September 9

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
And yes, the government will screw up. Because they all do. And right now, the Lib Dems don't look to be large enough, in quite the right place to become the Real Opposition.

But watching some of our right wing friends leap joyfully over Reeves's problems reminds me of every other time an opposition has said "we've really got them this time". Most times, you haven't.

(And the fiscal NIMBYdom we are seeing is making me feel less well-disposed to the right wing press, the Conservative Party and the retired. I accept that I am unusual.)

I almost feel sorry for Reeves and Starmer over the WFP furore. It should never have existed, and the whole point of it's existence was to provide an expensive elephant trap for anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Then I remember that they are only reaping the fruits of the cynical acts of a previous Labour government, and thus only almost feel sorry, rather than actually feel sorry as I watch them blundering around in the clearly marked elephant trap into which they have freely chosen to dive head first.

That said, the various Tory leadership candidates are skating on very thin ice, as it desperately needed abolition, and if they aren't careful they'll find themselves saddled, albertross like, with promises to bring the stupid thing back next time they are in government.

OldKingCole · September 9

Sandpit said:

OldKingCole said:
Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.
Unlikely to ever happen. The history and Constitution says that the ultimate power is with the States and flows up to the Federal government, rather than being at the Federal level and devolved to the States as we see in the UK.

Unlikely, I agree. I wrote, and meant, ought. Otherwise the USA will be in danger of breaking up, or, worse, becoming ungovernable.

FF43 · September 9

mercator said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.

Yeah but this is the politics equivalent of "we all die". This is true. At some point Labour will be replaced and in the absence of alternatives the replacement is likely to be the conservatives. How long will this be and what are you doing in the meantime?

I would say the nuconleader would need to be not just adequate, but very lucky to beat Labour at the next election given the situation they are in now. Pretending otherwise is setting them up to fail I suggest.

Verulamius · September 9

OldKingCole said:
Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.

If that is so then the Republicans could do well in the House elections as the marginal House seats are in California and New York I think.

algarkirk · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

Well, strange deaths are being suffered, and chronicled by Wheatcroft and co, by socialist England, conservative England and liberal England. And in Europe strange deaths are being reported of christian democrat Europe, social democrat Europe and liberal democrat Europe. To say nothing of 'peace in our time'.

I'm wondering what rough beast, its hour come round at last.......

Though I also think there is more ruination in the Tory party than we have seen yet, and a greater mysterious power to regroup a different thing under the same name as we have seen so often before.

TheScreamingEagles · September 9

Hurrah, like lawyers, life gets better when bankers get involved.

Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.

Building giant Barratt Developments has teamed up with Lloyds Banking Group to build thousands of new homes in a joint venture led by Homes England, the government body responsible for housebuilding.

The scheme, known as the Made Partnership, will act as master developer for new residential developments ranging from 1,000 homes to more than 10,000 which will be built across the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/09/angela-rayner-150m-barratt-garden-towns/

Malmesbury · September 9

TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah, like lawyers, life gets better when bankers get involved.

Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.

Building giant Barratt Developments has teamed up with Lloyds Banking Group to build thousands of new homes in a joint venture led by Homes England, the government body responsible for housebuilding.

The scheme, known as the Made Partnership, will act as master developer for new residential developments ranging from 1,000 homes to more than 10,000 which will be built across the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/09/angela-rayner-150m-barratt-garden-towns/

Barratt Homes - so they will be shit quality, then.

And they will be getting a local monopoly on the building, it looks like. So they will be in control of the supply. Again. What could possibly stop them building at a break neck pace?

Malmesbury · September 9

From the last thread. Can we please use this, every time The Lettuce is mentioned?

TheScreamingEagles · September 9

On topic I did speak to a pollster who does work over the pond.

He reckons that the handful of non partisan pollsters are relighting the last two wars where they underestimated Trump.

That’s why it is looking so tight.

mercator · September 9

https://polymarket.com/

US online "prediction market" (not allowed to be a betting exchange) with nearly 800m staked on WH24, advised by Nate Silvers, possibly worth paying attention to. Thinks KH 75% to win the debate but DT 78% to be still favourite to win on 11 September (unsurprisingly, nobody would expect odds to flip that quick).

Malmesbury · September 9

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.

I think it is more that the initial boost has died back - leaving a tie between her and Trump.

Or, more exactly, a tie between MAGA and anti-MAGA. The actual politicians have marginal influence.

Stuartinromford · September 9

theProle said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
And yes, the government will screw up. Because they all do. And right now, the Lib Dems don't look to be large enough, in quite the right place to become the Real Opposition.

But watching some of our right wing friends leap joyfully over Reeves's problems reminds me of every other time an opposition has said "we've really got them this time". Most times, you haven't.

(And the fiscal NIMBYdom we are seeing is making me feel less well-disposed to the right wing press, the Conservative Party and the retired. I accept that I am unusual.)
I almost feel sorry for Reeves and Starmer over the WFP furore. It should never have existed, and the whole point of it's existence was to provide an expensive elephant trap for anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Then I remember that they are only reaping the fruits of the cynical acts of a previous Labour government, and thus only almost feel sorry, rather than actually feel sorry as I watch them blundering around in the clearly marked elephant trap into which they have freely chosen to dive head first.

That said, the various Tory leadership candidates are skating on very thin ice, as it desperately needed abolition, and if they aren't careful they'll find themselves saddled, albertross like, with promises to bring the stupid thing back next time they are in government.

Though sometimes the only thing to do with an elephant trap is to mix metaphors and take it on the chin by cutting the knot.

Is it the right thing for a government to do? Hell, yes.

Is it the right time to do it? There's no good time, but the first months after a big win, when pensions are going up fast in real terms (a big rise happened for 2024/5, and seems set to be joined by another one in 2025/6) is a good as it is going to get.

Starmer and Reeves are bound to get flack for this. But if they can't stand the flack, they shouldn't have entered politics. It doesn't matter if the flack is being fired off in good faith or not. And you make a good point about the Conservative leadership hopefuls- are they really going to bring it back in (hey it may happen) 2029? If so, bang goes all that shrink the state, fiscal rectitude guff.

rkrkrk · September 9

Definitely feels 50/50 at the moment.
Debate will be first chance many people get to look at Harris so stakes are really high for her.

Trump is a known quantity, I doubt there is much he can do which will turn off his fans.

FF43 · September 9

theProle said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
And yes, the government will screw up. Because they all do. And right now, the Lib Dems don't look to be large enough, in quite the right place to become the Real Opposition.

But watching some of our right wing friends leap joyfully over Reeves's problems reminds me of every other time an opposition has said "we've really got them this time". Most times, you haven't.

(And the fiscal NIMBYdom we are seeing is making me feel less well-disposed to the right wing press, the Conservative Party and the retired. I accept that I am unusual.)
I almost feel sorry for Reeves and Starmer over the WFP furore. It should never have existed, and the whole point of it's existence was to provide an expensive elephant trap for anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Then I remember that they are only reaping the fruits of the cynical acts of a previous Labour government, and thus only almost feel sorry, rather than actually feel sorry as I watch them blundering around in the clearly marked elephant trap into which they have freely chosen to dive head first.

That said, the various Tory leadership candidates are skating on very thin ice, as it desperately needed abolition, and if they aren't careful they'll find themselves saddled, albertross like, with promises to bring the stupid thing back next time they are in government.

I doubt it. Tories are doing what politicians do: taking advantage of their opponents discomfort, aka hypocrisy. Good luck to them. Labour does the same to them.

mercator · September 9

FF43 said:

mercator said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.
Yeah but this is the politics equivalent of "we all die". This is true. At some point Labour will be replaced and in the absence of alternatives the replacement is likely to be the conservatives. How long will this be and what are you doing in the meantime?

I would say the nuconleader would need to be not just adequate, but very lucky to beat Labour at the next election given the situation they are in now. Pretending otherwise is setting them up to fail I suggest.

Sure. But I am old enough to remember 1997 and young enough to remember it accurately and in detail. Then, it was obvious 2 months in that all the adequacy and luck in the world were not going to win the Tories the next or almost certainly next but one GE.

darkage · September 9

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.

Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.

TimS · September 9

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah, like lawyers, life gets better when bankers get involved.

Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.

Building giant Barratt Developments has teamed up with Lloyds Banking Group to build thousands of new homes in a joint venture led by Homes England, the government body responsible for housebuilding.

The scheme, known as the Made Partnership, will act as master developer for new residential developments ranging from 1,000 homes to more than 10,000 which will be built across the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/09/angela-rayner-150m-barratt-garden-towns/
Barratt Homes - so they will be shit quality, then.

And they will be getting a local monopoly on the building, it looks like. So they will be in control of the supply. Again. What could possibly stop them building at a break neck pace?

Barratt has a brand problem doesn’t it? It’s found itself used as a generic term for identikit, unattractive new homes with small windows.

But is that perhaps only among the sort of people who wouldn’t buy a barratt home anyway? Like Lexus, or Harvester.

MattW · September 9

TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah, like lawyers, life gets better when bankers get involved.

Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.

Building giant Barratt Developments has teamed up with Lloyds Banking Group to build thousands of new homes in a joint venture led by Homes England, the government body responsible for housebuilding.

The scheme, known as the Made Partnership, will act as master developer for new residential developments ranging from 1,000 homes to more than 10,000 which will be built across the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/09/angela-rayner-150m-barratt-garden-towns/

I hope they get some extra Building Control Officers in.

bondegezou · September 9

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.

I don't think I would characterise Kennedy or Musk as centrists, but maybe their endorsements work some voters.

williamglenn · September 9

Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697

Nigelb · September 9

theProle said:

OldKingCole said:
Has it not been suggested that Trump is edging up somewhat in safe Dem areas, such as California, and Harris improving in states which likely to be significant in the Electoral College?
The next Congress (or two, perhaps) ought to have a look at the way the President is elected, and, as mentioned here yesterday, at the whole electoral system, taking it out of the hands of local politicians.
It's like FPTP. Everyone thinks the system needs fixing except whoever benefited from it last, who entirely co-incidentally also always happen to be those who are in a position to do something about it. And thus change never happens.

In the US the bar to change is way higher than it is here.

algarkirk · September 9

mercator said:

FF43 said:

mercator said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.
Yeah but this is the politics equivalent of "we all die". This is true. At some point Labour will be replaced and in the absence of alternatives the replacement is likely to be the conservatives. How long will this be and what are you doing in the meantime?

I would say the nuconleader would need to be not just adequate, but very lucky to beat Labour at the next election given the situation they are in now. Pretending otherwise is setting them up to fail I suggest.
Sure. But I am old enough to remember 1997 and young enough to remember it accurately and in detail. Then, it was obvious 2 months in that all the adequacy and luck in the world were not going to win the Tories the next or almost certainly next but one GE.

But it was pretty obvious in February 2020, two months into the new Boris parliament, two weeks out of the EU, and 15 point lead in the polls, that Labour had no chance in 2024. And as for getting 411 seats. Not possible.

Hatfield_Short_Club · September 9

“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

FF43 · September 9

mercator said:

FF43 said:

mercator said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.
Yeah but this is the politics equivalent of "we all die". This is true. At some point Labour will be replaced and in the absence of alternatives the replacement is likely to be the conservatives. How long will this be and what are you doing in the meantime?

I would say the nuconleader would need to be not just adequate, but very lucky to beat Labour at the next election given the situation they are in now. Pretending otherwise is setting them up to fail I suggest.
Sure. But I am old enough to remember 1997 and young enough to remember it accurately and in detail. Then, it was obvious 2 months in that all the adequacy and luck in the world were not going to win the Tories the next or almost certainly next but one GE.

I would say the same situation applies now because the Conservatives really are in a bad way, and worse than in 1997 as the article says. And also Starmer's story is to be the most underestimated political operator of recent times. The 411 seat majority is extraordinary, but a fair amount of it is due to him.

rottenborough · September 9

TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah, like lawyers, life gets better when bankers get involved.

Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.

Building giant Barratt Developments has teamed up with Lloyds Banking Group to build thousands of new homes in a joint venture led by Homes England, the government body responsible for housebuilding.

The scheme, known as the Made Partnership, will act as master developer for new residential developments ranging from 1,000 homes to more than 10,000 which will be built across the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/09/angela-rayner-150m-barratt-garden-towns/

Didn't Barrets announce a profits warning the other day as they are struggling to complete what they are already working on?

Malmesbury · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Yup - it's almost certainly the government offering to smooth the path for the developers. Who will remain in control of project. Especially the rate of completion....

turbotubbs · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

I don't think 150 M is the total spend, more the government input to assist the process.

rkrkrk · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Yes, I thought it seemed very small too...

Selebian · September 9

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697

Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the (against) ASDA argument. Women and men can presumably both apply for both roles - if there's more pay in the depots when it's due to being less accessible/more unsocial hours/more physical? There must be reasons the shop workers don't just head off to the depots for more pay. If female depot workers are discriminated against, then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not about equalising pay.

darkage · September 9

bondegezou said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I don't think I would characterise Kennedy or Musk as centrists, but maybe their endorsements work some voters.

It is often said that Trump has reached his ceiling, but some people that would not otherwise vote for Trump will be influenced by endorsements from people like Musk and Kennedy - perhaps that is what we are seeing.

In a lot of ways 'centrist' is the wrong term, it just really means people who aren't keen on either candidate. Both appear to be quite radical and extreme - something that Biden was not.

MattW · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Various aspects to this, with funding from various sources, including a bank and Homes England. A 20 year plan. And £150m is the total build cost of 500-1000 houses.

So it will need a lot more of everything - money and land other developers (Barratts are in the masterplanner role) - and then will still only be a small contribution to the total pipeline.

I'd punt that they will get to deliver 500 per annum by year 5, and 2000-5000 per annum by year 10, if it succeeds.

Full article here:
https://archive.ph/5SVXV

mercator · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

500 houses at 300k a pop. Staggering.

rottenborough · September 9

"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.

maaarsh · September 9

Selebian said:

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697
Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the (against) ASDA argument. Women and men can presumably both apply for both roles - if there's more pay in the depots when it's due to being less accessible/more unsocial hours/more physical? There must be reasons the shop workers don't just head off to the depots for more pay. If female depot workers are discriminated against, then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not about equalising pay.

Next warehouses were a 52/48 split apparently, but that was still enough for the claim to proceed given the store staff were heavily female.

MattW · September 9

FPT:

Fishing said:

Taz said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:
Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?
Lots of houses being built around here.

As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

That has not happened yet.

Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
OK, it's early days, but there are indications and they aren't promising. Given the disastrously cumbersome and bureaucrtic planning system, and Labour's plans to just tinker with it, rather than reform it radically, I think it'll be at least two, maybe three, years before any additional houses are started, and about four or five years before they have a noticeable effect on the housing market, if they ever do.

And of course since that moron Rayner is in charge and she is working with big builders rather than breaking them up, and has removed any notion of beauty from the guidelines, they'll be hideous rabbit hutches that fall apart in a few years. Just in time for the Conservative reaction that puts housing policy back into the deep freeze and caves in to the NIMBYs for another generation.

Perhaps a gloomy take but having watching this issue for several decades we don't ever seem able to get it right in this country. A friend of mine in Sacramento who studies housing regulations globally for a living recently gave me a long rant about how terrible they are in California, then went on, "And the only place I've seen that's even worse is ... England".

I think one rabbit in the hat is that there are sites and schemes at various stages of the process clogged up by the Sunak pivot to Nimbydom to attempted to save the Election around 2 years ago.

I have no idea how the numbers will play out.

Sandpit · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Well at £300,000 each, it’s a massive 500 houses!

Welcome to PB by the way.

Stuartinromford · September 9

Malmesbury said:

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Yup - it's almost certainly the government offering to smooth the path for the developers. Who will remain in control of project. Especially the rate of completion....

Though the press release talks about MADE being the master developer;

A master developer is responsible for overseeing and managing the development of large-scale projects, taking responsibility for the overall vision and strategy, and coordinating the wide range of stakeholders involved. It assembles the land, manages the planning, installs the primary and community infrastructure, disposes of serviced parcels of land to developers, and ensures robust long-term stewardship is put in place.

https://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/media/media-releases/pr-2024/pr-09-09-2024-made-partnership

There's a potential conflict of interest, but maybe... just maybe... they're going to get it right.

mercator · September 9

algarkirk said:

mercator said:

FF43 said:

mercator said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
1997 is a mistake for 2010, para 2

Yada yada, people have been writing this piece since the 1980s. Sometimes it is about con, sometimes lab. Relative competence is an ugliness contest and think about this: Rachel Reeves is the best person in this government to be chancellor, David Lammy is best person to be foreign secretary. Think about it some more.

Parties aren't competent, people are competent. If nuconleader turns out to be even adequate at the job they can turn this round in this parliament.
Yeah but this is the politics equivalent of "we all die". This is true. At some point Labour will be replaced and in the absence of alternatives the replacement is likely to be the conservatives. How long will this be and what are you doing in the meantime?

I would say the nuconleader would need to be not just adequate, but very lucky to beat Labour at the next election given the situation they are in now. Pretending otherwise is setting them up to fail I suggest.
Sure. But I am old enough to remember 1997 and young enough to remember it accurately and in detail. Then, it was obvious 2 months in that all the adequacy and luck in the world were not going to win the Tories the next or almost certainly next but one GE.
But it was pretty obvious in February 2020, two months into the new Boris parliament, two weeks out of the EU, and 15 point lead in the polls, that Labour had no chance in 2024. And as for getting 411 seats. Not possible.

Not to me. We knew Johnson was a shyster, we had seen him looking like a loser throughout 2019, getting Brexit done looked a bit less easy than he wanted us to think. But yes I would have given you good odds on 400+ seats.

turbotubbs · September 9

Selebian said:

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697
Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the (against) ASDA argument. Women and men can presumably both apply for both roles - if there's more pay in the depots when it's due to being less accessible/more unsocial hours/more physical? There must be reasons the shop workers don't just head off to the depots for more pay. If female depot workers are discriminated against, then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not about equalising pay.

Its utter, utter bullshit. If a women was denied a job in the depot because she was female I'd support the claim. If not, shut up and get on with wandering the shop floor chatting to customers.

As a student I had a summer job in a pub/restaurant. As bar staff I had to deal with customers and thus was eligible for a share of the tips received. The kitchen staff were not - they did not have to deal with the customer. They did, however, get food to take home (going out of date, cooked too much etc).

Swings and roundabouts.

williamglenn · September 9

Selebian said:

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697
Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).

And warehouse work isn't the same as working on a checkout, but that hasn't stopped the claims.

HYUFD · September 9

It looks like Georgia and Pennsylvania will be the deciding states

Mortimer · September 9

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.

BUt dA gRoWN uPs aRe In cHaRge

Mortimer · September 9

On topic, as I've been cautioning for weeks, Trump's far from out of this.

Harris's 'not Biden' bounce is trailing off...

HYUFD · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.

A party which still got 6.8 million votes at the last general election and is just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll may be on the ropes but is not heading for extinction

Mortimer · September 9

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
A party which still got 6.8 million votes at the last general election and is just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll may be on the ropes but is not heading for extinction

Just wait for the bounce when Sunak isn't leader anymore.....

partypoliticalorphan · September 9

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.

I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.

FF43 · September 9

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

£150 million is the investment made by the three partners into creating the new mega development corporation.

Incidentally some people were asking this morning when are they going to do something about building all those houses. I guess this is the something

MADE Partnership will act as master developer for multiple large scale, residential-led developments from 1,000 to more than 10,000 homes along with a variety of community facilities and employment uses.

Potential development opportunities will include large brownfield developments, as well as new garden village style communities.

The partnership brings together Barratt, the UK’s leading national sustainable housebuilder, Homes England, the Government body responsible for housebuilding and regeneration in England, and Lloyds Banking Group, one of the largest funders of the UK housing sector.

This is a long-term partnership, initially backed by combined equity funding of up to £150m provided equally by the partners. The partnership brings together the essential skills, expertise and long-term approach, with the ability to unlock and scale the capital required to bring larger sites into production, enabling both major and SME homebuilders to build the new homes and communities the country needs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/barratt-developments-homes-england-and-lloyds-banking-group-launch-joint-venture-made-partnership

turbotubbs · September 9

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.

As Sutekh used to say "Your evil is my good"...

bondegezou · September 9

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
A party which still got 6.8 million votes at the last general election and is just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll may be on the ropes but is not heading for extinction

You’re still obsessing about the latest poll with a 4% lead and ignoring the prior polls with leads of 12, 9, 12, 14…

williamglenn · September 9

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
A party which still got 6.8 million votes at the last general election and is just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll may be on the ropes but is not heading for extinction
You’re still obsessing about the latest poll with a 4% lead and ignoring the prior polls with leads of 12, 9, 12, 14…

Do you think the trajectory of Labour support is up or down?

FF43 · September 9

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:
Wheatcroft:

… how can we describe the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative party? Half a dozen toothless people squabbling over a toothbrush?

Fourteen years on [from 1997], it’s not just that last July the Tories suffered their worst defeat since the Reform Act of 1832, which began the gradual process of democratisation: this time it feels different. Alan Duncan retired from parliament in 2019 after nearly three decades as a Conservative MP, holding ministerial office for much of the past decade. His verdict is bleak: “I think the Conservative party is in a far worse state than it was in 1997. It’s intellectually bankrupt; it’s pretty well financially bankrupt; it’s certainly reputationally bankrupt.”

That last was maybe the crucial point. When Theresa May told the Tory conference in 2002 that the Conservatives were in danger of being seen as “the nasty party”, it was a misprision. No one had ever voted for the Tories because they were “nice”. Their selling proposition was competence, and that has now been utterly lost, to a point where it may be very difficult ever to recover it.

To return, unenthusiastically, to this leadership contest, it demonstrates in itself the Tories’ plight. When this bedraggled band of Tory MPs whittles the number of candidates down to two, a last choice is made by the members. To which one might respond: what members, and what party? In the early 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party had 2.8 million members, and was one of the great popular political movements in Europe. Not surprisingly the Tories are coy about the present figure of membership, but it appears to be about 170,000. This is a party heading for extinction.
A party which still got 6.8 million votes at the last general election and is just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll may be on the ropes but is not heading for extinction

I agree with that. The important thing the Tories did in 2024 was to avoid extinction, which wasn't a given if the polling before the election had been accurate. They will live on to fight another day. But let's not underestimate the dire state they are in.

Selebian · September 9

turbotubbs said:

Selebian said:

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697
Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the (against) ASDA argument. Women and men can presumably both apply for both roles - if there's more pay in the depots when it's due to being less accessible/more unsocial hours/more physical? There must be reasons the shop workers don't just head off to the depots for more pay. If female depot workers are discriminated against, then that's a different issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not about equalising pay.
Its utter, utter bullshit. If a women was denied a job in the depot because she was female I'd support the claim. If not, shut up and get on with wandering the shop floor chatting to customers.

As a student I had a summer job in a pub/restaurant. As bar staff I had to deal with customers and thus was eligible for a share of the tips received. The kitchen staff were not - they did not have to deal with the customer. They did, however, get food to take home (going out of date, cooked too much etc).

Swings and roundabouts.

As the park keeper said, "I could get more per hour in an Asda warehouse, but this job has other perks: swings and roundabouts"

Eabhal · September 9

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.

Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

Selebian · September 9

williamglenn said:

Selebian said:

williamglenn said:
Asda is the next big name to be targeted under equal pay legislation.

At what point will they come for the NHS?

https://x.com/gmb_union/status/1833036473110499697
Do the NHS pay their depot workers (?) more than those customer-facing in hospitals?

Where else would this apply? For doctors the split is not that far from even, is it? Nurses still vastly more female, but hard to argue it's the same job as docs (different training/education requirements for a start).
And warehouse work isn't the same as working on a checkout, but that hasn't stopped the claims.

But you can at least apply for both jobs (I guess) with similar qualifications/experience - i.e. in some cases, depending on other candidates, none.

Good luck applying for an NHS doc job without an MBChB.

Note, I think - on the facts as I'm aware of them - that the Asda case is nonsense. But it's different to any obvious comparison in NHS. There may be similar roles on possibly different pay in the NHS for similar reasons, but doctors and nurses aren't those roles.

turbotubbs · September 9

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

That would not be a bad outcome. However the lie being told is that its to do with the 22 billion black hole in the finances which this won't then help to fix...

Mortimer · September 9

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

For a start, it suggests that the bureaucracy is the only part of the equation to benefit from a political decision....

But then the left have never been bothered by this; jobs for the boys etc.

FF43 · September 9

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.

That would be a great, if unplanned, result with genuine social benefit and would help alleviate pensioner poverty. People should take the benefits owing to them. Unlike WFP, they are there to protect against hardship.

DavidL · September 9

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

Likewise. I know several pensioners who used the WFA to pay for trips during their cruise. These sorts of bribes are extremely poor value for money. People used to say that the costs of administrating universal benefits saved the difference but that is nonsense. Who really thinks that taking CB away from those earning over £100k, like me, cost the state money? Of course it didn't. It cost me money but I was fortunate enough to afford it.

And as for the non take up of Pension credit, its a national disgrace and any government with a hint of decency would be looking to make it easier for those entitled to do so. If this achieves that purpose it is a double win.

JosiasJessop · September 9

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.

All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.

williamglenn · September 9

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.
That would not be a bad outcome. However the lie being told is that its to do with the 22 billion black hole in the finances which this won't then help to fix...

It will cause a run on the pound…

williamglenn · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.

“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154

Selebian · September 9

williamglenn said:

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.
That would not be a bad outcome. However the lie being told is that its to do with the 22 billion black hole in the finances which this won't then help to fix...
It will cause a run on the pound…

Surely strengthen the pound, if the WFA withdrawal defunds winter flights abroad for wealthy pensioners and they comfort themselves with a domestic break/dinner out/bottle of expensive Scotch

turbotubbs · September 9

DavidL said:

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.
Likewise. I know several pensioners who used the WFA to pay for trips during their cruise. These sorts of bribes are extremely poor value for money. People used to say that the costs of administrating universal benefits saved the difference but that is nonsense. Who really thinks that taking CB away from those earning over £100k, like me, cost the state money? Of course it didn't. It cost me money but I was fortunate enough to afford it.

And as for the non take up of Pension credit, its a national disgrace and any government with a hint of decency would be looking to make it easier for those entitled to do so. If this achieves that purpose it is a double win.

As my folks called it - the Winter Rugby Allowance (some way to pay for two season tickets to the Rec to watch Bath).

Stuartinromford · September 9

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

The lot of an opposition party isn't a happy one... especially when they are so accustomed to being in government.

Incoherent shit-stirring is one of the few pleasures left to them, it seems cruel to deny them that as well.

FF43 · September 9

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.
That would not be a bad outcome. However the lie being told is that its to do with the 22 billion black hole in the finances which this won't then help to fix...

Financial black holes shouldn't be filled by depriving people of the means to basic living. If this happens, and Labour does seem to be pushing Pension Credit as their way out of the political mess, it will be no thanks to Rachel Reeves planning. But it is a result.

Now if they could do something about the two child cap, which is the real scandal....

Selebian · September 9

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.
Why's that a bad thing? A much more efficient use of money; instead of funding millionaires, the cash is going to the pensioners who really need it (might even freeze to death according to the Telegraph).

I am increasingly baffled by the Conservative approach to all this. It's blatant pandering to literal benefit scroungers.

As long as it's not pandering to liberal benefit scroungers it will be ok with some of the base

darkage · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.

I think the uncertainty is that voters don't know very much about her, she is avoiding scrutiny, so the other side are stepping in to the gap with this stuff. Not nice at all, but it is just politics. There was always this risk with introducing her in to the contest in this way.

Jim_Miller · September 9

For some time I have suspected that pollsters who miss badly may over-adjust as a result.

I think I have seen something similar with snow forecasts; when the weather folks underestimate the snow from a storm, they will tend to err in the opposite direction.

From memory, Silver has this to say about US weather forecasts: They have improved over the years. The best forecasters do improve the forecasts from the models, a bit -- and 10 days out, you should ignore the forecasts and just predict the average for that day.

The last point may be relevant to this discussion.

JosiasJessop · September 9

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154

That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.

Nigelb · September 9

Trump again falsely alleging ballot fraud - a week or so before the ballot even opens.
https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1832946155380203597

Selebian · September 9

Nigelb said:
Trump again falsely alleging ballot fraud - a week or so before the ballot even opens.
https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1832946155380203597

20%? If there are mail-in ballots and the vote is not yet open it sounds like they're 100% dodgy!

williamglenn · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154
That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.

Why far from it?

carnforth · September 9

On the high weirdness of Peter Oborne:

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-odd-world-of-peter-oborne/

IanB2 · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.

The most noticeable feature here is that politics is a subject almost everyone avoids in conversation; no-one refers to anything beyond ‘things being in a mess’ and any attempt to make the most passing of references to the election is generally studiously ignored. I guess they are all conditioned to avoid landing in any argument with someone from the opposite tribe.

Pulpstar · September 9

rottenborough said:
"ITV’s Anushka Asthana says the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed 100% take-up [of Pension Credit] would eliminate any [WFA] savings."

Guardian blog.

FFS.

Won't happen. Like trying for 100% turnout at a GE

DavidL · September 9

On topic, I think that the debate tomorrow night starts at 2am our time, possibly 3am if I have got BST wrong. I am not staying up to watch that on a school night.

As a rule these debates have been boring with both sides focusing on avoid an error and trotting out tired nonsense from their stump speeches. This one may be a little more interesting than most: will Trump be able to speak in coherent sentences? Will Biden look sufficiently Presidential? Can Harris catch Trump in a blatant lie? Can he pin her on her flip flopping?

More interesting is to consider who does best out of a draw? I think Harris because she is marginally ahead. Unless the polling is underestimating Trump again...

IanB2 · September 9

Wearing hats indoors at breakfast is just weird.

JosiasJessop · September 9

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154
That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.
Why far from it?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

MarqueeMark · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wearing hats indoors at breakfast is just weird.

Depends how bad a hair day you are having...

williamglenn · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154
That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.
Why far from it?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

She even borrows directly from his argument that "equality" entrenches the bourgeoisie.

Nigelb · September 9

For somewhere like the US, this will be absolutely the case
The UK's poorer insolation makes it a bit more complicated for us.

What people don't get about solar power:

The panels are SO CHEAP that we're going to basically have two separate electricity markets: almost free electricity during the day, and expensive electricity at night
https://x.com/d_feldman/status/1833005212165968326

TheScreamingEagles · September 9

Best parents ever.

Zara and Mike Tindall track daughter using Apple AirTag

Mia, 10, photographed with small white gadget attached to her shorts at Burghley Horse Trials on Saturday

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/09/09/zara-mike-tindall-track-daughter-apple-airtag/

JosiasJessop · September 9

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154
That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.
Why far from it?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
She even borrows directly from his argument that "equality" entrenches the bourgeoisie.

Yeah, right. How about all the rest of it?

Harris's views are not exactly remarkable for (say) a European perspective for centre-left (or even some centre-right) people.

But I see you also ignore the Trump veering towards Fascism point. To help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco

(I'm not saying Trump matches all of these, but he does match a worrying number of them.)

IanB2 · September 9

Nigelb said:
For somewhere like the US, this will be absolutely the case
The UK's poorer insolation makes it a bit more complicated for us.

What people don't get about solar power:

The panels are SO CHEAP that we're going to basically have two separate electricity markets: almost free electricity during the day, and expensive electricity at night
https://x.com/d_feldman/status/1833005212165968326

I’ve been in the US two weeks now, and have yet to see a solar panel, other than little ones on roadside apparatus and the like. Whereas there are now a few quite big wind farms out in the Midwest.

williamglenn · September 9

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

darkage said:

DavidL said:
The big momentum for Harris has clearly petered out. She has more money, more offices, more volunteers and is getting more of the new registrations and yet, somehow, Trump is edging back.

The suggestion I have read is that pollsters generally did make changes to their weighting after underestimating Trump in 2016 and 2020 but have they overdone it and are we comparing like with like when Harris seems at least as far behind as Clinton and nowhere near where Biden was in 2020?

Its tight. I was reluctant to believe that for a time, now I am kinda hoping for it.
Harris has only just entered and hasn't said very much, definitely hasn't really been tested. So the situation is likely to be a lot more volatile than any other comparable presidential election. It could go well for her or it could go very badly.

I don't follow the election in the same level of details as others posting on this website, but I would observe that Trump has been making efforts to appeal to 'centrists', ie with the Kennedy and Musk endorsements, and by going on the Lex Fridman podcast, and driving the idea that this is actually a 'coalition to save America', which is quite a big change in strategy and something that might be influencing the improvement in the polls.
I read a poll finding somewhere this morning that indicated that Americans view Trump as less extreme than Harris.
All the 'Communist Harris' shit that's being thrown at her.

Which is odd, as she isn't in any way Communist, whilst it's easy to argue that Trump has at least some fascist traits to him.

America's fucked.
“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154
That isn't Communism though, is it? Far from, in fact.
Why far from it?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
She even borrows directly from his argument that "equality" entrenches the bourgeoisie.
Yeah, right. How about all the rest of it?

Harris's views are not exactly remarkable for (say) a European perspective for centre-left (or even some centre-right) people.

But I see you also ignore the Trump veering towards Fascism point. To help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco

(I'm not saying Trump matches all of these, but he does match a worrying number of them.)

She's explicitly arguing for equality of outcome. That's not typical on the centre-left.

mercator · September 9

IanB2 said:
Wearing hats indoors at breakfast is just weird.

Dry white toast? Four roast chickens?

TimS · September 9

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Hatfield_Short_Club said:
“Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has struck a £150m deal with Britain’s biggest housebuilder to build a string of new garden towns and villages across the country as ministers seek to ramp up their ambitious housing plans.”

Isn’t £150m more like a few streets rather than a string of new garden towns an villages?

Yup - it's almost certainly the government offering to smooth the path for the developers. Who will remain in control of project. Especially the rate of completion....
Though the press release talks about MADE being the master developer;

A master developer is responsible for overseeing and managing the development of large-scale projects, taking responsibility for the overall vision and strategy, and coordinating the wide range of stakeholders involved. It assembles the land, manages the planning, installs the primary and community infrastructure, disposes of serviced parcels of land to developers, and ensures robust long-term stewardship is put in place.

https://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/media/media-releases/pr-2024/pr-09-09-2024-made-partnership

There's a potential conflict of interest, but maybe... just maybe... they're going to get it right.

More evidence that government ministers read PB:

Alanbrooke
Alanbrooke Posts: 25,070
7:52AM
Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

The State of the Union Week 2 – politicalbetting.com

Comments