Skip to content

Sir Ed Davey is the most popular GB wide party leader – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,686
edited 7:01AM in General
Sir Ed Davey is the most popular GB wide party leader – politicalbetting.com

Net favourability ratings for party leadersNigel Farage: -31Jeremy Corbyn: -31Ed Davey: -6Keir Starmer: -50Kemi Badenoch: -35Zarah Sultana: -13*Zack Polanski: -10**recognition rate lower than 50%Further political figures available in article: yougov.co.uk/politics/art…

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,201
    edited 7:05AM
    Wow*

    *ironically or otherwise
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,201
    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,796
    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Oops.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,850
    edited 7:06AM
    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,201
    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    You're saying we should adjust Davey's figures after considering Taz ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,796
    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,651
    edited 7:09AM

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Starmer does seem to have this magic ability to not say anything particularly controversial, but appears to rub everybody up the wrong way.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,603
    FPT -
    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @harryjsisson

    🚨Rolling Stone is now confirming what we all knew happened with Jimmy Kimmel’s show. According to their reporting, executives at ABC and Disney didn’t think Kimmel said anything outrageous but they feared retaliation from Trump. This is a blatant attack on free speech.

    https://x.com/harryjsisson/status/1968490483224633624

    The problem is, it's NOT a blatant attack on free speech - it's an indirect, ambiguous and relatively subtle attack on free speech. Kimmel wasn't arrested and ABC didn't say "we're doing this because of direct government pressure". The key is deniability to those who just read headlines and don't have time to inquire closely.

    This is how freedom dies in countries with long democratic traditions - it's not directly repealed, it's subtly and gradually undermined though whispers behind the scenes and quiet understandings.
    Gosh that sounds terrible - you're telling me subtle pressure is preventing American Liberals from saying what they really think. I really can't imagine what it would be like to live on such terms, or what monsters might try to exert such influence.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,296
    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    I’m surprised Starmer got 21% approval ! You’re right I don’t think much of Starmer but would vote for Labour to stop Reform.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,202
    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Yes, that seems to be the core problem!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,847
    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    Yes that's true in a competitive political system.

    It also doesn't allow for the strength of feeling amongst passionate supporters - my feeling is that Farage has a fairly robust "base" - humble apologies for the Americanism - but I've never heard of anybody calling themselves a "staunch Starmerite".

    (Which Starmer anyway? Corbyn's "good friend" or the guy who expelled him from the Labour Party? The Trotskyist junior barrister or the PM that poses in front of the Union Jack at every opportunity, tries to control immigration and welfare spending and refuses to sanction Israel?)
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,296

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    I don’t think he needs a big recovery as many who can’t stand him absolutely loathe Farage and Reform .
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,837

    The best way of "winning" on this metric at the moment is basically be somebody who the public has never heard of. As it appears if they have heard of you, they don't like you.

    Best of all is for the public to have never heard of you, second best is to be known but not have done anything. It can't be normal for the PM and the main alternatives to all being horribly unpopular... Can it?

    The TLDR is that we don't like the status quo, but don't like any of the proposed prescriptions either.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321
    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,084

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Surely Thatcher pre Falklands? I think few PMs have found themselves on the wrong side of something as unpopular as Gaza before. I would also say unfavouable though I'd certainly vote for him if the sleazeball Farage was annthing like a possibility
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,106
    Zach Polanski has done well to get down to -10 already. I'm surprised more than 10% of the country have heard of him.
    Though from what little I've seen he's an easy man to take an instant dislike to.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321
    There's apparently yet another new word to add to the majesty of the English language.

    To be "Coldplayed" - it means to be found out and to express outward signs of embarrassment and guilt.

    Example - "when they told everyone I was a Lib Dem, I felt really coldplayed". Does that work?

    Over to our linguistic experts - perhaps those whose primary source of income is the English language mayhap (I thought I;d throw that in)?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,912

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Starmer does seem to have this magic ability to not say anything particularly controversial, but appears to rub everybody up the wrong way.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CfIhNYcyllA&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,970
    Roger said:

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Surely Thatcher pre Falklands? I think few PMs have found themselves on the wrong side of something as unpopular as Gaza before. I would also say unfavouable though I'd certainly vote for him if the sleazeball Farage was annthing like a possibility
    No. Thatcher was hated by some, disliked by a lot. But she was respected as a capable leader. Early on, her opponents tried the usual sexist* “she’s just a puppet” thing - but it fell flat.

    Starmer gets a kind of contempt - from the left for having forsaken so many left wing principles, and all for nothing. From the middle for being a middle manager. From the extreme right for being part of The Same Old Thing.

    None of it is a critique of Starmerism. There’s no such thing.

    *Antonia Fraser noted the familiar pattern of attacks on women leaders, going back centuries.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,084
    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,970
    stodge said:

    There's apparently yet another new word to add to the majesty of the English language.

    To be "Coldplayed" - it means to be found out and to express outward signs of embarrassment and guilt.

    Example - "when they told everyone I was a Lib Dem, I felt really coldplayed". Does that work?

    Over to our linguistic experts - perhaps those whose primary source of income is the English language mayhap (I thought I;d throw that in)?

    Talking of Coldplay - they seem to have become a hit among my daughter’s generation. They headed en masse to the recent gig in London.

    Not heard the expression you mention, though.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,838
    Roger said:

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Surely Thatcher pre Falklands? I think few PMs have found themselves on the wrong side of something as unpopular as Gaza before. I would also say unfavouable though I'd certainly vote for him if the sleazeball Farage was annthing like a possibility
    The difference back then is that the major parties had their tribal supporters, who would defend their party and its leader pretty much whatever they did. Think HY, at least as he was until two or three years back. This limited the depths to which any leader could fall in a (n un)popularity poll.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,135
    Cookie said:

    Zach Polanski has done well to get down to -10 already. I'm surprised more than 10% of the country have heard of him.
    Though from what little I've seen he's an easy man to take an instant dislike to.

    Perhaps confusing him with Roman?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    edited 7:34AM
    Good morning everyone. Thank-you for the header.

    Whodathunkit?But i see it actually means "least unpopular".

    Now what Ed needs is 100 such polls in a row.

    And to rebuild their operation in Ashfield ! The Ashfield Indies are still in the old Lib Dem office.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321
    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Of course but I'm told by those who claim to know we want a "strong" leader who bosses us about and tells us what to do and how it's going to be.

    Yet, I remember the Mail in 1992 banging on about "nice" John Major was - he was only nice when beating Labour. As soon as he hit trouble, the Mail put the boot in.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,391
    The leader approvals match the voting intention scores for Reform, Labour and Conservative.

    Davey is popular with a chunk of folk who don't say that they will vote LibDem.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,896
    Good morning, everyone.

    If we had a presidential system he might be in good stead.

    And Charlie Kennedy would've run the country.

    But we don't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,970
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    It’s worth noting the death (in a number of countries) of the traditional political cycle.

    That is, do unpopular stuff at the start of your term to build a social and economic boom for the next election.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,084
    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    Good point. All Starmer needs are 65% to believe there's a possibility of Farage winning to be home and dry
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,582
    R4 interviewing someone from Newsbunny this morning at length.
    Apparently Trump spent most of last night talking to Kate, from which I think we can conclude Prince William will be having a tough morning.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,844
    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295
    Morning all
    The country caught a dose of 'anything will be better than this' in 2024 and Labour/Starmer are paying the price for disproving it. Starmer especially as he is disproving it in a personality vacuum.
    Look at Nigel's figures....... not a good sign for him as the country now shows early signs of Reform cant be any worse-itis
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    ON teh question of ex-Labour MPs to defect to Reform UK.

    Andrew Gwynne?

    I just caught up with him having joked about a local cyclist who was run down by an HGV, and joking about Jewish people and their names. It feels more "Ref UK Councillor" (or maybe 1950s Blue Labour) than Labour Party 2024-5.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    edited 7:40AM
    Roger said:

    Eabhal said:

    This polling doesn't measure the depth of feeling however. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who disapprove of Starmer but would be more than happy to vote Labour to keep Farage out.

    Head-to-head polling is surely a better indicator?

    It is, but I am struggling to recall a PM whose ratings went this negative and recovered.
    Surely Thatcher pre Falklands? I think few PMs have found themselves on the wrong side of something as unpopular as Gaza before. I would also say unfavouable though I'd certainly vote for him if the sleazeball Farage was annthing like a possibility
    I wondered about Churchill post-WW2, who recovered in that he became PM again - but that's not an exact parallel.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 459
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. Thank-you for the header.

    Whodathunkit?But i see it actually means "least unpopular".

    Now what Ed needs is 100 such polls in a row.

    And to rebuild their operation in Ashfield ! The Ashfield Indies are still in the old Lib Dem office.

    Are the Ashfield Indies up to much these days? I thought Mr Zarodny (sp?) had retired after doing surprisingly badly in the General Election.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295
    edited 7:43AM
    MattW said:

    ON teh question of ex-Labour MPs to defect to Reform UK.

    Andrew Gwynne?

    I just caught up with him having joked about a local cyclist who was run down by an HGV, and joking about Jewish people and their names. It feels more "Ref UK Councillor" (or maybe 1950s Blue Labour) than Labour Party 2024-5.

    Simon Danczuk has already done it of course (apols if already stated) - Labour MP 2010-17 stood for Reform in the Rochdale by election
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,991
    Be interesting to find out what the LDs do as our government. Even if people approve because they only know him through high-jinks, what does that matter?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,862
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,685
    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Good to see British values still alive and well.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone. Thank-you for the header.

    Whodathunkit?But i see it actually means "least unpopular".

    Now what Ed needs is 100 such polls in a row.

    And to rebuild their operation in Ashfield ! The Ashfield Indies are still in the old Lib Dem office.

    Jason Zadrozny WAS the LD operation in Ashfield wasnt he? Theyve never troubled the scorers there apart from when he ran
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,393
    Keir Starmer's poor ratings really are a worry. I'm Labour Labour Labour but there's no point in denying the problem. Somehow the warm appealing empathetic persona we saw on Desert Island Discs has not made the transition to number 10.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,316

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    And literally the one time I think a Government could have admitted the lack of moons was in July - September last year and Starmer / Reeves utterly blew that one chance.

    Which means they are now going suffer a death by a 1000 small cuts, each of which drains away a small bit of support until the flood gates truly open.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,862
    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,850
    edited 7:55AM
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    And literally the one time I think a Government could have admitted the lack of moons was in July - September last year and Starmer / Reeves utterly blew that one chance.

    Which means they are now going suffer a death by a 1000 small cuts, each of which drains away a small bit of support until the flood gates truly open.
    I agreed with the IFS take that the first budget was always going to be a bit of tinkering and any significant reforms would happen in this upcoming budget. So last chance saloon.

    (You could double council tax and largely wipe out the structural deficit - IT is not the only option).
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 459

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    The problem is that throughout the twentieth century the political system was based on the idea of bribing the electorate with other people's money. This involves robbing Peter to pay Paul - but the electorate have realised that it is better to be a Paul than a Peter, and their numbers have risen accordingly.

    Pensions is the classic example. It's not just the tripl;e Lock Ratchet. I seem to recall the Labour Party in the 1970 (??) General Election campaigning to reduce the pension age from 70 to 65.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    edited 7:59AM

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963
    edited 8:02AM

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,862
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or do it over 2 or 3 years instead
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or both which I suspect is where Reeves is heading at the end of November.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,201
    stodge said:

    There's apparently yet another new word to add to the majesty of the English language.

    To be "Coldplayed" - it means to be found out and to express outward signs of embarrassment and guilt.

    Example - "when they told everyone I was a Lib Dem, I felt really coldplayed". Does that work?

    Over to our linguistic experts - perhaps those whose primary source of income is the English language mayhap (I thought I;d throw that in)?

    The example ought to better illustrate the way in which the outward expression of embarrassment/guilt is what draws public attention, leading to exposure.

    If the love rats in question had simply brazened it out, no one might have noticed.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,479
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    And literally the one time I think a Government could have admitted the lack of moons was in July - September last year and Starmer / Reeves utterly blew that one chance.

    Which means they are now going suffer a death by a 1000 small cuts, each of which drains away a small bit of support until the flood gates truly open.
    I agreed with the IFS take that the first budget was always going to be a bit of tinkering and any significant reforms would happen in this upcoming budget. So last chance saloon.

    (You could double council tax and largely wipe out the structural deficit - IT is not the only option).
    Of course. That's not the solution, that's the problem - finding an extra £50 billion pa. The government and every party balks at reducing the increase in pensions by a couple of hundred a year or less than a fiver a week and so won't touch the triple lock.

    To double council tax is roughly to increase the tax of a household by over £2000 pa. That is the stuff of poll tax revolts. TME is currently running at about £20,000 per head, over £40,000 per household. Opinion is highly sensitive to tiny increases let alone massive ones.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,862

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or do it over 2 or 3 years instead
    And reverse the Tory NI cuts

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,862

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or do it over 2 or 3 years instead
    And reverse the Tory NI cuts

    And if we have to have NI as well as tax, make it payable on all income. As a pensioner myself I would expect that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,391
    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    Dopermean said:

    R4 interviewing someone from Newsbunny this morning at length.
    Apparently Trump spent most of last night talking to Kate, from which I think we can conclude Prince William will be having a tough morning.

    Newsbunny? Is that a thing?

    I think we need Dennis Pennis back.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvghEZX9fNs
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963
    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    That Cameo still exists is the bigger shock!

    I thought that was for unemployed entertainers to raise some cash during the pandemic, and when they all went back to the day jobs of acting and telling jokes it would die a death.

    Edit: so I looked it up (so you don’t need to), he’s charging $100 for a personal greeting and $5,000 for a corporate greeting. That’s a lot of Happy Brithdays if he’s making £30k a month after commission, although presumably a few Americans are paying the corporate rate for remote speeches. https://www.cameo.com/nigelfarage
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,201
    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    And literally the one time I think a Government could have admitted the lack of moons was in July - September last year and Starmer / Reeves utterly blew that one chance.

    Which means they are now going suffer a death by a 1000 small cuts, each of which drains away a small bit of support until the flood gates truly open.
    I agreed with the IFS take that the first budget was always going to be a bit of tinkering and any significant reforms would happen in this upcoming budget. So last chance saloon.

    (You could double council tax and largely wipe out the structural deficit - IT is not the only option).
    Of course. That's not the solution, that's the problem - finding an extra £50 billion pa. The government and every party balks at reducing the increase in pensions by a couple of hundred a year or less than a fiver a week and so won't touch the triple lock.

    To double council tax is roughly to increase the tax of a household by over £2000 pa. That is the stuff of poll tax revolts. TME is currently running at about £20,000 per head, over £40,000 per household. Opinion is highly sensitive to tiny increases let alone massive ones.

    Yes, but the nettle has to be grasped.
    We can't pay off our debt in two years, or twenty. But we can, and must stop increasing it at a rate faster than the economy is growing.

    If we don't, the problem will compound, and hello IMF. If we're lucky.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,084
    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    Zach Polanski has done well to get down to -10 already. I'm surprised more than 10% of the country have heard of him.
    Though from what little I've seen he's an easy man to take an instant dislike to.

    Perhaps confusing him with Roman?
    I read an interesting piece in relation to advertising about how we form our opinions. They described it like a bird building a nest. The pieces are put together over time and get stronger until they're set in stone. With Polansky those who have been paying mild attention so far will know he changed his name at the age of 18 from David Paulden 'to get back to his roots'.

    As a first clue in this nest building that would be a negative as would his Corbyn embrace

    (But I like him and think his anti Farage clip was excellent)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963
    edited 8:13AM

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or do it over 2 or 3 years instead
    It doesn’t accumulate. To average a 30% increase in income tax revenue over three years means raising the rates from your baseline by 15% in year 1, 30% in year 2, and 45% in year 3. In year 4 you can drop it back to 30% and leave it there.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,479

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    The LDs can't do it for a number of reasons, political and demographic. The nationwide contest is between Lab, Tory (for now), and Reform. The LDs are in play only for about 100 seats, and this is where they are the proxt sub for Labour.

    GOTV's fine analysis of the LD situation is well worth a read or reread. To do really well they would need not just new voters but new types of voter.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/07/11/the-challenge-for-the-liberal-democrats/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,266

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    Vote LibDem for a land fit for nimbys and waspis.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,204
    edited 8:14AM
    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,850
    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    And literally the one time I think a Government could have admitted the lack of moons was in July - September last year and Starmer / Reeves utterly blew that one chance.

    Which means they are now going suffer a death by a 1000 small cuts, each of which drains away a small bit of support until the flood gates truly open.
    I agreed with the IFS take that the first budget was always going to be a bit of tinkering and any significant reforms would happen in this upcoming budget. So last chance saloon.

    (You could double council tax and largely wipe out the structural deficit - IT is not the only option).
    Of course. That's not the solution, that's the problem - finding an extra £50 billion pa. The government and every party balks at reducing the increase in pensions by a couple of hundred a year or less than a fiver a week and so won't touch the triple lock.

    To double council tax is roughly to increase the tax of a household by over £2000 pa. That is the stuff of poll tax revolts. TME is currently running at about £20,000 per head, over £40,000 per household. Opinion is highly sensitive to tiny increases let alone massive ones.

    Don't get me wrong - I don't think doubling council tax is remotely politically possible. It's just when I look at the tax and spending options that are available it's about the best one, along with freezing hospital spending and binning the triple lock/WFP.

    What's mad is you could double council tax to 1% and apply it as flat percentage and that would be a cut for most households. It's that unfair at the moment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,122

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    Agree.

    Perhaps some anger would actually do the Lib Dems some good, and spur their supporters on.

    You don't often see an angry Lib Dem... ;)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,844

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    Chevrolets are bloody ugly.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,122
    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    Isn't that sort of service a really good way of laundering money?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874
    edited 8:23AM
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    That Cameo still exists is the bigger shock!

    I thought that was for unemployed entertainers to raise some cash during the pandemic, and when they all went back to the day jobs of acting and telling jokes it would die a death.

    Edit: so I looked it up (so you don’t need to), he’s charging $100 for a personal greeting and $5,000 for a corporate greeting. That’s a lot of Happy Brithdays if he’s making £30k a month after commission, although presumably a few Americans are paying the corporate rate for remote speeches. https://www.cameo.com/nigelfarage
    That's Christmas. I saw a reported figure of iirc £175k, but I can't recall the source. It was a component of a "how many millions does Farage have" around a claim of RefUK as a party of multi-millionaires at the controlling level.

    £81k in his most famous 12 months fits with that number, and is authenticated Farage himself.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,204

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    Chevrolets are bloody ugly.
    Ian #WeStandWithCorbyn
    @jorge_rupes
    "Here, we see The Beast driven through Windsor...Inside a 10 ton vehicle."😉
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,801
    edited 8:30AM

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    So far.

    One of the most interesting things about the vom-fest state visit is that the MAGA crew genuinely believe that the UK is on the brink of a helter-skelter style civil/race war. They have zero understanding of this country but are determined, through Tom-eh, Farage and others to export their Lie-deology, guns, anti abortion extremism and all, to the UK.

    Given the likely problems in the US economy, the choice of Starmer, the Tories and especially Reform to put all their eggs in the USA, MAGA basket may look very foolish in a year or two.

    Ed Davey, by contrast, expresses the disgust that the majority of Brits feel towards Trump and his sinister neo-fascist acolytes. That could look like strategic genius remarkably soon. I get that in his heart of hearts, Starmer is totally insincere in his flattery of the loathsome Trump, but after Mandelson, even being in the same room is a statement that is unpopular to say the least.

    In order to be seen as decent, it really helps if you are decent, which Ed Davey, self evidently, is.

    Meanwhile the hypocritical slime fest of Trumps slug trails all over Windsor is not a sight many of us want to see again.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,204
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    That Cameo still exists is the bigger shock!

    I thought that was for unemployed entertainers to raise some cash during the pandemic, and when they all went back to the day jobs of acting and telling jokes it would die a death.

    Edit: so I looked it up (so you don’t need to), he’s charging $100 for a personal greeting and $5,000 for a corporate greeting. That’s a lot of Happy Brithdays if he’s making £30k a month after commission, although presumably a few Americans are paying the corporate rate for remote speeches. https://www.cameo.com/nigelfarage
    Over three years that's almost a 4 bedroom house in Clacton (if your bird didn't have rich parents).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,651
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    That Cameo still exists is the bigger shock!

    I thought that was for unemployed entertainers to raise some cash during the pandemic, and when they all went back to the day jobs of acting and telling jokes it would die a death.

    Edit: so I looked it up (so you don’t need to), he’s charging $100 for a personal greeting and $5,000 for a corporate greeting. That’s a lot of Happy Brithdays if he’s making £30k a month after commission, although presumably a few Americans are paying the corporate rate for remote speeches. https://www.cameo.com/nigelfarage
    Jay from the Inbetweeners is still making million plus a year out of it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,266

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Of course, he is.

    Everyone likes Sir Ed - he really should be Prime Minister rather than some Old Alleynian.

    Sljghtly more seriously, the problem with most politicians is the more people see them and get to know them the less they like them. It's almost as though politics, a trade where success is a result of popularity, is defined by unpopularity.

    Governing a country means doing things not everybody likes and those who like it least shout about it the most as we see on here - who'd have thought?

    You win elections by promising the moon on a stick. Especially in our current system, the temptation is always to promise a stickier moon than the others.

    That's fine, until you enter office and have to admit a bit of a lack of moons. And sticks..

    It would be good if someone could win power on a platform of "these are the specific painful things we will need to do", but I don't think you can. Cameron cane closer than many in 2010, but even he was vague on the consequences of percentage cuts.
    Yet if you ask people, there's a constant refrain about wanting politicians to be "honest" with them.

    The paradox is while honesty may be the best policy in life, it isn't in politics. You lie through your teeth to get elected and when you confront the voters with the truth, they don't like it and call you a liar but if you hadn't lied to them in the first place you wouldn't be in a position to be honest with them.

    It's little surprise people of real ability stay away from politics - I would.
    Agreed. As a country we could wipe out the debt if we upped income tax for a couple of years. No party would say that because they wouldn't get elected.
    Debt is nearly 100% of annual GDP. To wipe it out in two years, tax income would need to rise from 40% of GDP to 90% of an unchanged GDP.

    So in basic terms the major tax rates (income tax, NI, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax, council tax) would need to more than double, with no adverse effects on behaviour from those asked to pay 90% in income tax.

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/
    Sorry, I meant the black hole.
    Okay so from the OBR numbers current income is £1,141bn, and the deficit £137bn, which is 12%.

    So to reduce that to zero you’d need to raise 12% more tax than today.

    Income tax currently raises £477bn, so to get another £137bn from income tax you’d need to raise the rates by 29%.

    So 20% income tax becomes 26%, 40% income tax becomes 52%, and 45% income tax becomes 58%, assuming no behavioural changes.

    Alternatively, they could just cut spending.
    Or do it over 2 or 3 years instead
    And reverse the Tory NI cuts

    And if we have to have NI as well as tax, make it payable on all income. As a pensioner myself I would expect that.
    The problem there is that employee and personal pension contributions are paid after national insurance has been deducted.

    So if you now make national insurance payable on all income then future pension income will have been hit twice by national insurance.

    The better thing to do would be to get rid of national insurance entirely and increase income tax by an equivalent amount.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,393

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    A more likely 'c' word for him is cabinet, I'd have thought.

    The previous to that clip is also a killer. You really have to hope it's an act.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,986
    Cicero said:

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    So far.

    One of the most interesting things about the vom-fest state visit is that the MAGA crew genuinely believe that the UK is on the brink of a helter-skelter style civil/race war. They have zero understanding of this country but are determined, through Tom-eh, Farage and others to export their Lie-deology, guns, anti abortion extremism and all, to the UK.

    Given the likely problems in the US economy, the choice of Starmer, the Tories and especially Reform to put all their eggs in the USA, MAGA basket may look very foolish in a year or two.

    Ed Davey, by contrast, expresses the disgust that the majority of Brits feel towards Trump and his sinister neo-fascist acolytes. That could look like strategic genius remarkably soon. I get that in his heart of hearts, Starmer is totally insincere in his flattery of the loathsome Trump, but after Mandelson, even being in the same room is a statement that is unpopular to say the least.

    In order to be seen as decent, it really helps if you are decent, which Ed Davey, self evidently, is.

    Meanwhile the hypocritical slime fest of Trumps slug trails all over Windsor is not a sight many of us want to see again.
    As I think I have said before Labour need to put that photo of a grinning Farage stood next to Trump in the Oval Office on every leaflet they deliver.
  • Smart51Smart51 Posts: 82
    These numbers show that Ed Davey is almost as popular as Nigel Farage, but way less unpopular. Who'd have thought it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,393
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Yes, that seems to be the core problem!
    Starmer has found a solution though. He sold UK plc to the Yanks for £150bn yesterday. Not a great price but he is not good at numbers. Now we will have to do what we are told, whether it is burning gas to feed AI data centres, abolishing the Digital tax or whatever. I think that America is allowing Parliament to remain as a decorative part of our constitution, which is a plus for political betting at least.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,321

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    Vote LibDem for a land fit for nimbys and waspis.
    Don't overthink it - you'll be happy once the LDs have been in Government for a couple of decades and no one has the wobbles.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,084

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    I thought it was a spoof. Are you sure it isn't?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295
    Interesting set of local by elections tonight

    I think the Greens will take the Brighton/Hove ward from Labour
    Newham Indies will take the Newham ward
    I think Labour will hold on in Cardiff, I think its more sticky for them than anywhere else in Wales
    LDs will fancy taking Leamington from Labour, and probably will
    Greens should hold Kenilworth ok but the Tories will have thrown the kitchen sink at it and might close the gap
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,685

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    Agree.

    Perhaps some anger would actually do the Lib Dems some good, and spur their supporters on.

    You don't often see an angry Lib Dem... ;)
    Wait for the conference in a few days. Davey's going to get up on stage, channel IDS, and say "the placid man is here to stay, and he's dialing up the anger!"
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,850
    Australians aren't very happy with us for banning an Aussie journalist from the Trump press conference. I do think we've forgotten who our friends are.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,685
    Roger said:

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    I thought it was a spoof. Are you sure it isn't?
    If it's real then satirists need to pack up and go home. There's no point any more.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,704

    Interesting set of local by elections tonight

    I think the Greens will take the Brighton/Hove ward from Labour
    Newham Indies will take the Newham ward
    I think Labour will hold on in Cardiff, I think its more sticky for them than anywhere else in Wales
    LDs will fancy taking Leamington from Labour, and probably will
    Greens should hold Kenilworth ok but the Tories will have thrown the kitchen sink at it and might close the gap

    I think you could well be right. Odd that there are five bye-elections, four of them Labour defences though.


    And Good Morning to one and all.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,204
    Selebian said:

    Roger said:

    Lol, what a prick.
    When Farage gets his nicotine stained fingers on the reins of power we can be sure there's not the slightest danger of Daubney being cancelled.

    https://x.com/AndyPlumb4/status/1968416818210517446

    I thought it was a spoof. Are you sure it isn't?
    If it's real then satirists need to pack up and go home. There's no point any more.
    It's real, but satirists are getting the sack in any case.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,520
    I guess that Downing Street think that the first day of the State Visit of Trump went well, but I suspect that one day it will be only remembered with shame.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader, but also the second-most unpopular (based on the chart in the header). You know who else was Marmite and how many general elections she won?

    And we have independent confirmation of Farage's popularity in his declared earnings of tens of thousands a month from recording personal greetings – remember Up the Ra!

    Reportedly it is closer to hundreds of thousands:

    Mr Farage's register of interests revealed that he made £27,342 from the service in December (2024), almost double the amount he has previously registered for a single month.

    He spent 28 hours - more than three full average working days - filming hundreds of messages on top of his work as an Essex MP and Reform leader, giving him an hourly pay rate of £977.

    ..
    Since the election, Mr Farage has registered more than £81,000 he has made from Cameo alone.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14360025/Nigel-Farage-27k-Cameo-Christmas-bonus-Reform-UK-Christmas-morning.html

    (I think he started around 20-21.)
    That Cameo still exists is the bigger shock!

    I thought that was for unemployed entertainers to raise some cash during the pandemic, and when they all went back to the day jobs of acting and telling jokes it would die a death.

    Edit: so I looked it up (so you don’t need to), he’s charging $100 for a personal greeting and $5,000 for a corporate greeting. That’s a lot of Happy Brithdays if he’s making £30k a month after commission, although presumably a few Americans are paying the corporate rate for remote speeches. https://www.cameo.com/nigelfarage
    Jay from the Inbetweeners is still making million plus a year out of it.
    I guess if you were an actor in something that’s now a cult TV show or movie, but that doesn’t really pay much any more, it can serve as an online version of the comic conventions where they do meet-and-greets.

    I can imagine getting Nigel Farage to sing Happy Brithday to some woke student who hates his guts might be worth $100 as a prank among friends or parents, but there’s obviously a lot of people doing it if he’s making six figures a year!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,874

    Roger said:

    Davey is a lot smarter than people give him credit for being. He's always on the side of the angels (particularly Gaza) without screaming it from the rooftops. A quiet protest against it with the Trump visit that got him plenty of coverage. He's becoming everyone's safe and decent choice. I too wish we had a PM who could be 'nice'

    Davey is "everyone's safe and decent choice", but only getting 12-15% in the opinion polls. The LDs are failing to capitalise on Labour and Tory woes.
    Agree.

    Perhaps some anger would actually do the Lib Dems some good, and spur their supporters on.

    You don't often see an angry Lib Dem... ;)
    This is "Angry Lib Dem" wrt to Davey's media performance:

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/mathew-on-monday-how-do-we-up-our-media-coverage-78248.html
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295

    Interesting set of local by elections tonight

    I think the Greens will take the Brighton/Hove ward from Labour
    Newham Indies will take the Newham ward
    I think Labour will hold on in Cardiff, I think its more sticky for them than anywhere else in Wales
    LDs will fancy taking Leamington from Labour, and probably will
    Greens should hold Kenilworth ok but the Tories will have thrown the kitchen sink at it and might close the gap

    I think you could well be right. Odd that there are five bye-elections, four of them Labour defences though.


    And Good Morning to one and all.
    Theres a good set next week of 5 too

    Lab defence in Thetford in Truss old seat of SW Norfolk on Weds, and 4 on the Thursday
    2 x Highland - SNP defence and a Scots Green elected last time unopposed so free for all!
    Green defence in Ashford
    Green defence in Burnhams neck of the woods Wythenshaw/Sale
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,262
    edited 8:54AM
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Yes, that seems to be the core problem!
    Starmer has found a solution though. He sold UK plc to the Yanks for £150bn yesterday. Not a great price but he is not good at numbers. Now we will have to do what we are told, whether it is burning gas to feed AI data centres, abolishing the Digital tax or whatever. I think that America is allowing Parliament to remain as a decorative part of our constitution, which is a plus for political betting at least.
    Good morning

    The government are spinning the £150bn investment creating 75,000 jobs across the airwaves this morning

    When I heard 75,000 jobs for £150bn I assumed it was misspoken as I would want a whole lot more jobs for that investment, but it appears it is over 10 years on projects that have to pass design, planning and environmental issues and data centres that will consume vast quantities of electricity and water that is not readily available

    Add in the cost on consumers bills this seems much like the 1.5 million new homes, all smoke and mirrors

    I would suggest this investment would have happened anyway, but it is long term and in that long term is welcome but Starmer has less than 4 years and I doubt very little of it will be noticed by the public who are impatient for change

    And on Ed Davey, I don't generally comment too much about him because I respect many of the Lib Dems who post on here, but if I am being honest I wasn't impressed with his stunts and on policy I know and understand his crusade for carers, not least because of his own family issues, and on Europe and WASPI women but I have no idea what his tax and spending policies are and look on him mainly as representing an English, largely south based party, which is reflected when it comes to Wales, and to a degree Scotland, where he struggles to be relevant
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,295
    edited 8:55AM
    Tories have lost control of 'The Bell Hotel' Epping Forest council after 2 councillors (mother and son) have gone to independent
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963
    Gazprom Savalat oil refinery, 1,300km from Ukraine, appears to have ‘gone on fire’ this morning.

    How unfortunate that this appears to be now something of a daily theme.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1968591637002523068
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,121
    The gov't doesn't get much right but the announcement of inward investment by Nvidia and Microsoft is good news.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,316

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    "71% of the public have an unfavourable rating with Brits"

    We hate each other ?

    Yes, that seems to be the core problem!
    Starmer has found a solution though. He sold UK plc to the Yanks for £150bn yesterday. Not a great price but he is not good at numbers. Now we will have to do what we are told, whether it is burning gas to feed AI data centres, abolishing the Digital tax or whatever. I think that America is allowing Parliament to remain as a decorative part of our constitution, which is a plus for political betting at least.
    Good morning

    The government are spinning the £150bn investment creating 75,000 jobs across the airwaves this morning

    When I heard 75,000 jobs for £150bn I assumed it was misspoken as I would want a whole lot more jobs for that investment, but it appears it is over 10 years on projects that have to pass design, planning and environmental issues and data centres that will consume vast quantities of electricity and water that is not readily available

    Add in the cost on consumers bills this seems much like the 1.5 million new homes, all smoke and mirrors

    I would suggest this investment would have happened anyway, but it is long term and in that long term is welcome but Starmer has less than 4 years and I doubt very little of it will be noticed by the public who are impatient for change

    And on Ed Davey, I don't generally comment too much about him because I respect many of the Lib Dems who post on here, but if I am being honest I wasn't impressed with his stunts and on policy I know and understand his crusade for carers, not least because of his own family issues, and on Europe and WASPI women but I have no idea what his tax and spending policies are and look on him mainly as representing an English, largely south based party, which is reflected when it comes to Wales, and to a degree Scotland, where he struggles to be relevant
    I'm surprised it's even 75,000 jobs if it's data centres.

    And the problem with modern data centres is they consume stupid amounts of power that they need 24/7/365. So where are the gWs of power to keep them online coming from.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,169
    On Topic: I would like to know how many of the 40 who 'Don't know' re Ed Davey know him, but don't have an opinion, or haven't a clue who he is. Is there any split information on the 'Don't knows'. All we do know is the recognition rate is greater than 50% looking at the * note so we know that information is available.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,963
    edited 9:04AM
    Pulpstar said:

    The gov't doesn't get much right but the announcement of inward investment by Nvidia and Microsoft is good news.

    Indeed so, but I have a feeling there will be a devil in the detail somewhere, for example an expected price of electricity that’s a million miles away from Ed Miliband’s vision of the UK having the world’s most expensive energy.

    A massive £billions data centre needs a massive £billions power station next door to it these days.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,122
    "Only Ukrainians could put together Jurassic Park and Star Wars."

    https://x.com/TomasVilimec/status/1968200557618926019
Sign In or Register to comment.