Skip to content

62% of voters see Reform as extreme – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,722
edited 7:32AM in General
62% of voters see Reform as extreme – politicalbetting.com

if I were advising Labour or the Tories I would tell them to focus on linking Reform/Farage to Trump which will help amplify these findings and focus on Reform’s councillors and potential MPs.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,415
    Yep
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,974
    If the other 38% vote Reform, however....

    Given Reform's current polling there must be a very high overlap (90%+) between people who don't think Reform are extreme and are planning to vote for them.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,085
    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,618

    If the other 38% vote Reform, however....

    Given Reform's current polling there must be a very high overlap (90%+) between people who don't think Reform are extreme and are planning to vote for them.

    Yes. Though it means there is little upside and plenty of downside for Reform's prospects.

    It is an interesting moment; as of now:
    Burnham and Jenrick are back in the cage, with no live challenge to Kemi or SKS.
    Reform have foolishly saddled themselves with a policy that can be (and will be) read as deporting professional friends and neighbours of the entire middle class (my candidates include a consultant surgeon and my eye specialist.)
    The Tories have had unexpectedly decent coverage of their ludicrous but middle class aimed tax cuts.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,143

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    The question is, as they say, overdetermined.

    People feeling that they should be better off than they are was enough to explain the many many defeats of governments almost everywhere in 2024. You don't need the social stuff, or Biden-Harris's flaws as candidates.

    It was (as it usually is) The Economy (Stupid).

    Starmer-Reeves's inability to make us feel better off just like that is the main reason they're doing badly too, I reckon.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,618
    Re the Betfair and Gibson appeal, now on, discussed in the previous header, here is the original judgment, salutary reading for all punters. It is a comprehensive demolition of the blame culture.

    If Gibson wins the appeal, Hills are getting a stern letter from me seeking the immediate return of £13.47p


    https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LM-2021-000010-Lee-v.-TSE-Malta-LP-t.a-Betfair-FINAL.-docx.pdf
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,441
    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    They hated Polish people enough to vote for Brexit and got brown people instead.

    It would be nice to think they could join the dots to what a vote for RefUK will mean
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,879

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    What a difference a year in government makes.

    Trump's economic failure won't help Reform's case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351
    edited 7:53AM

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    In a two-party system and a direct election for an individual, it’s much easier for a voter to take the lesser-of-two-evils approach. Yes, Republicans led on the economy, on immigration, inflation, and were 50/50 on social issues.

    That’s more difficult when there’s five or six parties to choose from in a Parliamentary system. Reform will almost certainly find themselves in trouble with candidate selection if it looks like they might actually win overall. There could be dozens of Jared O’Maras out there.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,594
    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sadly you hit the nail on the head here AnneJGP. As for the headline article by TSE, equally sadly Reform dominate the current polling at a consistent 30%+ and that is driving not only the the political agenda, but the media narrative and drowning everything else out. But I remain deeply uncomfortable that the leader of Reform gets an almost daily Party Political Broadcast platform to rebut or criticise his opponents while they do not. But then, the current PM and Leader of the Opposition also remain full time leaders of their party while he does not....
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 204
    fitalass said:

    Any chance of a positive post about Kemi Badenoch after she delivered that really positive and well received policy filled speech at the Conservative Conference? Interesting to note that some of the journalists there who had already written her off have changed their minds after that speech, but none of you seem to remember how tough it was for David Cameron when he was elected and how unpopular George Osborne was within the Conservative party until they unveiled their inheritance tax policy at conference....

    Like Cameron and Osborne back in the day when Blair resigned and Brown took over as the new face of Labour and initially dominated the polling, Kemi pulled a blinder which ignored Farage and Reform and delivered some really solid Conservative policies that Farage didn't during the Reform conference. Watch this space...

    FPT

    I think quite a few people didn't expect Kemi to surprise on the upside yesterday ... it's a long way back from where the Tories are polling but we are also a long way out from the 2029 election. There's no doubt the Tories will loads busloads of Councillors, MSPs, Welsh Parliament Members next year, the key is keeping enough numbers over the next 3 years to make a comeback viable.

    I think she needed a big ticket announcement, and stamp duty is a good base to build from. She can't outflank Reform on immigration, so attack them where they are weaker, the economy, health service etc. The triple lock clearly needs to go, there is time for politicians to come to their senses yet.

    If she gets good advice and remains open minded to change (including to her previous actions as Cyclefree alluded) she may do enough to keep Jenrick at bay, get half a chance to turn things round. At least the background didn't fall down behind her and she didn't lose her voice
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,225
    edited 8:03AM
    Good morning everyone.

    (Especially @HYUFD - good to have you around a bit more, though I somewhat vehemently disagree with the posts I have seen on the last thread !)

    In other news, forget Destry - Pochinocchio Rides Again.

    Summary

    This one is fairly comprehensible - it's a normal Pochin faceplant. Sarah Pochin helped a charity that uses the Boxing Club premises avoid a funding reduction, then filmed a video without permission claiming that she had helped the Boxing Club itself - leading to the statement above. It's pure lack of attention to detail. Her response was "there has been some confusion" rather than "sorry - my bad"; that style of slopey-shoulders will cause more problems.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,346
    38% don't though, which is enough to win a election
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,441
    Nigelb said:

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    What a difference a year in government makes.

    Trump's economic failure won't help Reform's case.
    The interesting question is whether in the US that's true. Trump has directly caused misery for farmers with his tariffs, but he is going to bail them out. As voters, will they reward him for "fixing" the problem he caused?

    While inflation runs rampant, he appears on TV every day and says prices are down. Do voters believe him?

    Some voters (dare I say voters who are inclined to vote for populists) seem unable or unwilling to connect events happening in their daily lives to the obvious bullshit these people peddle.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,441
    Sandpit said:

    If Farage is serious about government

    He's not

    Oh, he might want to win an election, but actually doing the work? Hell no.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,971
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    What a difference a year in government makes.

    Trump's economic failure won't help Reform's case.
    The interesting question is whether in the US that's true. Trump has directly caused misery for farmers with his tariffs, but he is going to bail them out. As voters, will they reward him for "fixing" the problem he caused?

    While inflation runs rampant, he appears on TV every day and says prices are down. Do voters believe him?

    Some voters (dare I say voters who are inclined to vote for populists) seem unable or unwilling to connect events happening in their daily lives to the obvious bullshit these people peddle.
    If we can apply that to Blighty, the politician so comprehensively wrong about everything: Brexit, management of the pandemic, war in Ukraine and Trump tariffs to name but a few gets a nightly airing explaining the nation has gone to hell in a hand cart and it is everyone's fault but his.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,413
    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
    Well, yes, and the same applies to the other parties as well.

    For all the happiness on here about Badenoch's Conference speech yesterday, it really falls apart under even a modest level of scrutiny. The first and most obvious question is why, if Stamp Duty is such a terrible tax, didn't the Conservatives abolish it during their 14 years leading the Government?

    Yes, we had Stamp Duty "holidays" and the threshold for first time buyers was raised to £300k but we all know this new idea is nothing to do with first time buyers and everything to do with trying to keep the asset bubble inflated. What will happen of course is prices will rise as demand rises until everyone tries to get on the bandwagon and supply chokes off demand.

    The £23 billion welfare "saving" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting and that might not be fully realised from year one while the stamp duty abolition will have an instant effect leaving the Treasury short of receipts and facing presumably more borrowing to cover the gap and as more people reach pension age the welfare budget is going to rise anyway. Assuming there are £23 billion of cuts in going after "the scroungers" is old fashioned Tory demonising of social groups.

    In any case, we are looking at much bigger numbers when it comes to borrowing and the deficit as well as the not insignificant amount of debt interest we have to pay thanks to Conservative economic mismanagement.

    So, yes, the Conservatives do need to come up with a fully costed manifesto.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,473

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    Except - cost savings aren’t instant but tax cuts cost money immediately.

    And as I said there is no substance to the £23bn in cost savings - if you want me to believe you tell me exactly what you are going to cut and I can check if the figures add up. If you don’t give me the detail I’m not going to believe you because I have 14 years of evidence that cuts don’t occur immediately
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,879

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Absolutely agree with all that.

    On the other hand, Badenoch has at least finally defined some significant policy which was hitherto lacking, and it's about a 100x more detail than Reform has set out. That at least ought to be welcomed, though heavily caveated as you set out.
    And it's likely several years until the next election, so there's plenty of time to press her on those points (assuming she stays in post).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    Except - cost savings aren’t instant but tax cuts cost money immediately.

    And as I said there is no substance to the £23bn in cost savings - if you want me to believe you tell me exactly what you are going to cut and I can check if the figures add up. If you don’t give me the detail I’m not going to believe you because I have 14 years of evidence that cuts don’t occur immediately
    I understand that, but it will be a manifesto commitment which I would expect to be a high priority

    Badenoch has restricted it to primary residence only which the IFS has costed at 4.5 billion and not the 15 billion some were quoting
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,079

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    Indeed. Badenoch has upped her game - against Reform.

    Labour bods here are worried because she doesn't need to up her game against Labour, so mired in the shit are they.

    If Badenoch can get the Tories up to somewhere around 25% by the time of the May elections, she'll have bought herself another year - to see what further turnaround she can achieve.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    Except - cost savings aren’t instant but tax cuts cost money immediately.

    And as I said there is no substance to the £23bn in cost savings - if you want me to believe you tell me exactly what you are going to cut and I can check if the figures add up. If you don’t give me the detail I’m not going to believe you because I have 14 years of evidence that cuts don’t occur immediately
    I understand that, but it will be a manifesto commitment which I would expect to be a high priority

    Badenoch has restricted it to primary residence only which the IFS has costed at 4.5 billion and not the 15 billion some were quoting
    Really only 4.5bn?

    That makes it a no-brainer for the positive effects it will have on both the housing market and the economy in general.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,368
    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
    He’s also going to need a whole shadow front bench.

    He doesn’t appear to have people dedicated to a particular brief.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,225
    edited 8:41AM
    DoctorG said:

    fitalass said:

    Any chance of a positive post about Kemi Badenoch after she delivered that really positive and well received policy filled speech at the Conservative Conference? Interesting to note that some of the journalists there who had already written her off have changed their minds after that speech, but none of you seem to remember how tough it was for David Cameron when he was elected and how unpopular George Osborne was within the Conservative party until they unveiled their inheritance tax policy at conference....

    Like Cameron and Osborne back in the day when Blair resigned and Brown took over as the new face of Labour and initially dominated the polling, Kemi pulled a blinder which ignored Farage and Reform and delivered some really solid Conservative policies that Farage didn't during the Reform conference. Watch this space...

    FPT

    I think quite a few people didn't expect Kemi to surprise on the upside yesterday ... it's a long way back from where the Tories are polling but we are also a long way out from the 2029 election. There's no doubt the Tories will loads busloads of Councillors, MSPs, Welsh Parliament Members next year, the key is keeping enough numbers over the next 3 years to make a comeback viable.

    I think she needed a big ticket announcement, and stamp duty is a good base to build from. She can't outflank Reform on immigration, so attack them where they are weaker, the economy, health service etc. The triple lock clearly needs to go, there is time for politicians to come to their senses yet.

    If she gets good advice and remains open minded to change (including to her previous actions as Cyclefree alluded) she may do enough to keep Jenrick at bay, get half a chance to turn things round. At least the background didn't fall down behind her and she didn't lose her voice
    Having listened to the Kemi speech again, I am not so optimistic that Kemi has smelt the coffee. There was quite a lot of misinformation in her speech, including the line obfuscating "out-of-work sickness benefits". She should at least be somewhat accurate.

    For me there were a couple of red flags, one around Kemi thing that everything is instant and change happens like the appearance of a Genie from a Lamp. Abracadabra, she declares ! And it is done! It is too simplistic.

    And her statement at the conclusion.

    I stand for a society where free speech trumps hurt feelings.
    Where everyone knows what a woman is.
    Where people are judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin.


    After the speeches made by Jenrick and others precisely making judgements by skin colour, not content of character.

    She's not on planet earth, yet.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,370
    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,113
    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,079

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    I'm reminded of Osborne's IHT ploy that brought the Tories very much back in the game.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    It's a good question but it is expensive if it applied to all property transactions but Badenoch has restricted it to primary residence only making it much more affordable

    If you go out of the political bubble there is hardly a desenting voice against the abolition and many consider it will boost growth
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    edited 8:47AM

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    I'm reminded of Osborne's IHT ploy that brought the Tories very much back in the game.
    The difference was there was going to be a general election within a few weeks.

    Remember at the time a Labour MP wrote

    'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 481

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    One catch would seem to be the Stamp Duty charged on Stock Exchange transactions. In effect it's a cheap and easy way of raising a lot of money for HM Treasury, but it's still a tax on the transfer of property. I am not sure if or how the various classes of property can be distinguished from each other. "Buy my semi in Penge for £20m and get the curtains, carpets and a portfolio of free shares" might be a worthwhile ransaction for some hedge funds.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,079
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
    He’s also going to need a whole shadow front bench.

    He doesn’t appear to have people dedicated to a particular brief.
    Farage embodies the principle "if you want to look thin, hang around fat people".

    He won't want smart people hanging around him. His "Cabinet in waiting" is going to be tired ex-Tories who wouldn't have made the top of government as a Conservative.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
    He’s also going to need a whole shadow front bench.

    He doesn’t appear to have people dedicated to a particular brief.
    That’s a good point. He only has 5 or 6 MPs, so he needs to identify new people to both take on a shadow brief and stand in an easily winnable seat.

    That probably involves paying at least a dozen of them from party coffers for the next four years, getting them on top of their brief and all over the media - while also not making an arse of themselves by saying something obviously racist.

    Farage is a master of this, knowing how to talk about immigration and integration without sounding like Nick Griffin or “Tommy Robinson”.

    But it’s a Parliamentry system, and Farage can’t do everything on his own.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,971
    edited 8:50AM

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,503
    edited 8:51AM

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    I suppose the catch is that crafty sellers, knowing that stamp duty is no longer a thing, will simply up their prices. The buyers will be indifferent because they'll still be spending what they intended to spend, and the government will get no taxes. So only the seller wins. And we also get a dash of property inflation thrown into the mix.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,823

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    I think it was a good speech and I quite like her personally. The central role of the abolition of stamp duty should be more controversial than it is, since it only benefits people who own homes worth more than £300K (which excludes 35% of households who don't own their home, plus whatever proportion own homes worth less than £300K - I can't find this info but it will be higher in the north). As such, it addresses a genuine problem (reluctance to move home) but overwhelmingly benefits the well-off. By contrast, the abolition of aid for people with limited mental problems probably affects non-voters disproportionately. Overall, it's a right-wing policy which ignores poorer people, while having benefits in encouraging mobility. As a Conservative policy it makes sense, although it doesn't tempt me as I prefer economic policies to favour people on lower incomes.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,079
    edited 8:54AM

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    I'm reminded of Osborne's IHT ploy that brought the Tories very much back in the game.
    The difference was there was going to be a general election within a few weeks.

    Remember at the time a Labour MP wrote

    'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
    There was going to be a general election: the IHT ploy caused Brown to bottle it. From which he never recovered.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351

    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.

    Fetterman is turning into quite the independent Democrat, just as Paul and Mukowski are quite the independent Republicans, all three of them voting their mind on the actual issue rather than toeing the party line.

    Isn’t the theory that wars are supposed to be authorised by Congress, but that it’s not actually happened that way since WWII?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,225
    edited 9:01AM
    This is genuinely funny from Reform in West Northamptonshire. Their Deputy Council Leader has decided to be Churchillian, in that Churchill is known for doing his politics in the bath.

    So he attended a Council Training Council from his bathtub via his Ipad.

    Churchill, however, did not have the problem that he had a tablet that could broadcast to the Treasury Management training course a live feed of his willy descending into the soap suds .

    (Deep link to remarks in the full Council meeting - about a minute)
    https://youtu.be/g_NGepwlKZ8?t=14762

    Chap obviously needs to be on Only Fans not TikTok.

    Do many Councillors do this? We had claims in Ashfield during Covid of our Deputy Council Leader Tom Hollis, the one with a long list of criminal offences, holding Council meetings in his hot tub.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    I think it was a good speech and I quite like her personally. The central role of the abolition of stamp duty should be more controversial than it is, since it only benefits people who own homes worth more than £300K (which excludes 35% of households who don't own their home, plus whatever proportion own homes worth less than £300K - I can't find this info but it will be higher in the north). As such, it addresses a genuine problem (reluctance to move home) but overwhelmingly benefits the well-off. By contrast, the abolition of aid for people with limited mental problems probably affects non-voters disproportionately. Overall, it's a right-wing policy which ignores poorer people, while having benefits in encouraging mobility. As a Conservative policy it makes sense, although it doesn't tempt me as I prefer economic policies to favour people on lower incomes.

    Just to correct you on stamp duty

    It is triggered on all property sales in England from £150,001

    Wales has LTT which is different and has different rates
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,442

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    1) And why hasn’t the planning system been reformed so that no-hope litigation can’t hold up
    projects for decades?
    2) why not a British DARPA?
    3) a partially reusable space launch vehicle was developed for $400 million dollars. Why not have one of our own? This would give the U.K. a national security advantage and mean that we could cheaply launch all kinds of things - such as a massively expanded OneWeb.
    4) why not merge employee NI and IT? Genuine savings, tax levelling (fairness)
    5) make employees genuinely liable for illegal employment - undocumented workers, paying below minimum wage, unsafe condition etc.
    6) rebalance corporate tax to make finacialisation of companies expensive. And investing in long term productivity improvements, cheap.

    Because “we don’t do things like that, here”
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,971

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,823

    If the other 38% vote Reform, however....

    Given Reform's current polling there must be a very high overlap (90%+) between people who don't think Reform are extreme and are planning to vote for them.

    The figures in the heading almost all favour Reform, the exception being extremism. Plenty of people are willing to vote for a party perceived as extreme if it meets most of their other criteria.

    The underlying issue is the shift in not only the Overton window (what policies are perceived to be moderate/mainstream?) but the decline in people feeling that any government must pursue moderate/mainstream policies (since these are perceived to have failed).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    edited 9:04AM
    Sandpit said:

    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.

    Fetterman is turning into quite the independent Democrat, just as Paul and Mukowski are quite the independent Republicans, all three of them voting their mind on the actual issue rather than toeing the party line.

    Isn’t the theory that wars are supposed to be authorised by Congress, but that it’s not actually happened that way since WWII?
    It's fake news, specifically Congress hasn't declared war since WWII but Congress has, inter alia, authorised the use of force on many occasions since WWII.

    Often forgotten the Senate came very close to not authorising the first Gulf War, it only passed 52/47.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,963

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    This is also why he loses a fair midterm election in 2026.
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 481

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the course but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box
    I think it was a good speech and I quite like her personally. The central role of the abolition of stamp duty should be more controversial than it is, since it only benefits people who own homes worth more than £300K (which excludes 35% of households who don't own their home, plus whatever proportion own homes worth less than £300K - I can't find this info but it will be higher in the north). As such, it addresses a genuine problem (reluctance to move home) but overwhelmingly benefits the well-off. By contrast, the abolition of aid for people with limited mental problems probably affects non-voters disproportionately. Overall, it's a right-wing policy which ignores poorer people, while having benefits in encouraging mobility. As a Conservative policy it makes sense, although it doesn't tempt me as I prefer economic policies to favour people on lower incomes.

    Just to correct you on stamp duty

    It is triggered on all property sales in England from £150,001

    Wales has LTT which is different and has different rates
    To correct the correction, if I may, it's worth remembering that Stamp Duty (and Stamp Duty Reserve Tax) are charged at 0.5% on most transactions in stocks and shares. I haven't heard whether or not Kemi Badenoch is proposing to abolish this as well. (It's due to be simplified into one scheme in 2027, I think.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351

    Sandpit said:

    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.

    Fetterman is turning into quite the independent Democrat, just as Paul and Mukowski are quite the independent Republicans, all three of them voting their mind on the actual issue rather than toeing the party line.

    Isn’t the theory that wars are supposed to be authorised by Congress, but that it’s not actually happened that way since WWII?
    It's fake news, specifically Congress hasn't declared war since WWII but Congress has, inter alia, authorised the use of force on many occasions since WWII.

    Often forgotten the Senate came very close to not authorising the first Gulf War, it only passed 52/47.
    According to the wiki on the subject, that 1990 war was the last major military action that Congress was involved in declaring, and that there’s been plenty of critisism of presidents since then for ‘going solo’.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

    Presumably future presidents didn’t like the idea of the Senate voting the other way, the World would look quite different now if Saddam had prevailed against Kuwait three decades ago.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,963
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    An aside - this is the magic of Trumpism. Somehow Trump managed to square the populist circle of getting people to vote for him whilst promising things that would directly hurt them. The Mexican immigrants with dodgy visa histories who voted for him in the belief that he was only talking about the “bad immigrants” and couldn’t possibly mean them are the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

    As part of this Trump achieved the political nirvana of becoming untouchable by any actual policy contradiction or scandal. He tapped into something fundamental in the human psyche - something that other politicians struggled to reach. Perhaps being a raging narcissists craving the crowd’s approval & cunning enough to work out what to say to attain it is a prerequisite to becoming a Trump-style politician? But you’d think there would have been enough of those out there in the past to do the same thing: Why now?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
    To be fair there is no persuading you but then you are not her target audience

    Yesterday she gave the best speech of any of this year's conferences to wide acclaim, and has set a very different course with real policies that will be discussed widely but she has got herself on the front pages, galvanised her audience, and started the long journey back and sidelined Jenrick

  • eekeek Posts: 31,473

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
    If the cost was only £4.5bn then Hunt could have cut it be just reducing the pointless employee NI cut to 3p and removed stamp duty on primary properties with the £5bn saved.

    The fact he didn’t tells me the IFS figure isn’t correct
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,225
    On the positive side for Reform Councillors, I see that my own RefUK County Councillor presented a petition asking for lower speed limits at the other end of his Ward.

    And I only half agree with him - it is a fairly rural trunk road with a Special School one side and a Training College the other side plus a bit of housing set in small estates off the road, and the petition wants 30moh on the trunk road (used to be 60, now 40), and 20 in the Estates. I'm with the second, not necessarily the first, and it's an area I know well as I used to volunteer at the Special School.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,842

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
    To be fair there is no persuading you but then you are not her target audience

    Yesterday she gave the best speech of any of this year's conferences to wide acclaim, and has set a very different course with real policies that will be discussed widely but she has got herself on the front pages, galvanised her audience, and started the long journey back and sidelined Jenrick

    It may have been the best speech of the season, but it's not above the line on the front of either the Sun or Mail website. If the Tories want to be + in the polls then they needed to have been there when people doom scrolled first thing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,370
    Phil said:

    AnneJGP said:

    A key factor in Mr Trump's appeal to the voters was that he was the only hope for a particular thing they cared about deeply, deeply enough to consider any risk worth taking.

    Reform is similar.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The reason I thought Trump would win in 2024 was he led on the economy, Reform don't hold that advantage.
    This is also why he loses a fair midterm election in 2026.
    Which is why it wont be fair.

  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,963

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    It’s a shame because (for all it’s many faults from my personal political perspective) this conference was the first time the Conservative Party has appeared to be serious about the political issues facing this country in years.

    The population has written them off though & it looks like the Conservatives are doomed to a sub Liberal Democrat MP count at the next GE.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 262

    If the other 38% vote Reform, however....

    Given Reform's current polling there must be a very high overlap (90%+) between people who don't think Reform are extreme and are planning to vote for them.

    The figures in the heading almost all favour Reform, the exception being extremism. Plenty of people are willing to vote for a party perceived as extreme if it meets most of their other criteria.

    The underlying issue is the shift in not only the Overton window (what policies are perceived to be moderate/mainstream?) but the decline in people feeling that any government must pursue moderate/mainstream policies (since these are perceived to have failed).
    I agree with Nick (sorry I couldn't resist that and actually I often do, particularly on animal welfare).

    Imo, this header underestimates the extent that people feel these are extreme times that require extreme measures.

    Kemi (and Jenrick) were good enough this week but they are now playing as the Reform Second xi and the selectors are likely to prefer the First team to face the bowling this country has in store.


  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,826
    Foss said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
    To be fair there is no persuading you but then you are not her target audience

    Yesterday she gave the best speech of any of this year's conferences to wide acclaim, and has set a very different course with real policies that will be discussed widely but she has got herself on the front pages, galvanised her audience, and started the long journey back and sidelined Jenrick

    It may have been the best speech of the season, but it's not above the line on the front of either the Sun or Mail website. If the Tories want to be + in the polls then they needed to have been there when people doom scrolled first thing.
    The mail's editorial is positive
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,892

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    A good speech only makes a difference if people are listening. No one is listening to the Tories no matter how much the Times or Tele might want it to be otherwise. I still think the viable strategy for the Tories is to go on a 3 year apology tour across the country, listen to voters and not mess about with policies except to say it's time to cut spending and live within our means. Then in election year having spent the last 3 years apologising people will be willing to give them a hearing and they avoid a wipe out
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,963
    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re stamp duty, perhaps I'm being thick but if the supply of houses doesn't increase and buyers now have more money with which to buy, won't this just lead to an increase in house prices which will make things even harder for those trying to get on the property ladder?

    House prices will increase to absorb any stamp duty cut, absolutely. But the point of eliminating stamp duty is not to cut house prices, it’s to reduce the friction imposed on the economy that stamp duty imposes. Stamp duty massively increases the transactional costs of moving house: That means that people are less likely to move to get a better job, or downsize to a smaller property as they get older.

    Taxes always have a negative effect on your economy because they alter the prices of goods away from their natural level. But stamp duty has more pernicious effects than any other tax - it is by far the worst tax economically. If you ask economists which tax they would most like to get rid of then stamp duty is at the top of the list. We would be far better off if we eliminated stamp duty & replaced it with almost any other tax.
    NB. Economists have calculated that the deadweight cost of stamp duty is so high that we get back most of the money it raises simply by getting rid of it.

    If they’re right, then it’s yet another arbitrary self-inflicted wound that we have imposed on ourselves for no reason whatsoever.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,842

    Foss said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Conference season ends and I believe the unexpected happened

    Kemi Badenoch delivered the best speech, rolled out an array of policies, and stamp duty the 'rabbit out of the hat'

    She energised her supporters and have given them something to sell on the doorstep

    And she did what I prayed she would, sent out a positive [conservative] message and barely mentioned Starmer or Farage

    Labour and Farage fell into the trap of hurling insults at each other to the detriment of both

    The added bonus is Jenrick is the biggest loser

    I do not know how the polls will react, but today was a start on the long road to relevance

    Rabbit out of a hat, or bollocks out of her arse?

    Pound shop Liz Truss.
    No Kemi identified welfare and spending cuts to fund her tax cut
    It wasn't just welfare but cuts in climate change subsidies and increasing north sea production with associated tax income, as well as welcoming back millionaires, entrepreneurs, and wealth creators

    She also will scrap IHT on farmers and abolish vat on private school fees

    Add in banning doctor strikes

    This is conservative policies and is a direct challenge to Labour and Reform
    This is pennies BigG. No spending cuts plan is credible without some sort of control on pensioner benefits and health spending. They are are growing so quickly - from a very high base - that any other cut or even steady economic growth is completely overwhelmed by them. Literally by design in the case of the triple lock.

    Labour haven't set out a plan either but let's not pretend the Conservative plan is fiscally prudent. DavidL's take on this is correct.
    Google tells me that the number of UK civil servants has increased since 2016 by 132,000 and that the median salary is £34k.

    That would imply a saving of £4.5bn under the Tory plan.

    Not commenting on whether it is feasible or not but it’s not “pennies”

    True - but I think the fact the median salary is so low suggests what kinds of roles those civil servants are doing - particularly when you consider how London dominated the civil service is.

    If you could cut 130,000 people out of Whitehall or it's equivalent in Scotland, Wales then fair enough. But I think the stats show that increase is primarily agencies like HMRC and DWP. Basically call centres, which would mean a reduced service. AI might be the answer to that but it's not a magic button you can press.
    It said that the range was £24 - 84k (from memory - haven’t checked).

    The only way to plausibly cuts costs is to stop doing stuff. Governments need to cut verticals rather than horizontally. (Equally I am sure that there are the sort of grinding efficiencies - 1, 2, 3 percent a year - that the private sector makes which government agencies never seem to be able to find)
    And that's why, at the moment, this is Potemkin Policy. Tell us which Civil Servants are going to be axed, and what's going to happen to the work they were doing, and it gets interesting. "It won't be done by the state" is a legitimate answer.

    Otherwise, Kemi is doing the fun bit without doing the hard work first. Maggie wouldn't have approved.
    PB Tories are normally pragmatic people, questioning the symmetry of a Labour or Lib Dem tax cut or spending pledge. "The books don't balance" they will cry.

    Yet a welcome Tory £12b tax cut paid by fantasy wastage savings get a free ride.

    Fortunately the Tories are not in Government. I am sure if they were the gilt markets might baulk.
    They are not “fantasy wastage savings”.

    They have said that they will reduce civil service numbers back to 2016 levels. That’s pretty specific - of course they haven’t identified “Me Mexican” or “Ms Pete” as being at risk of being made redundant - but it’s not just a number made up by some spreadsheet jockey.

    You had fourteen years in Government. Fourteen years to identify and implement swingeing service cuts to pay for massive tax cuts. You failed. During that 14 years, service provision levels crashed at the same time the tax burden increased.

    Posters have quoted Reform fantasy savings in Kent, savings so magnificent that Council tax increases could be suspended, until they found out there were few savings to be made and Council taxes were raised by 5%.

    A nice speech offering the Moon on a stick is one thing, shoehorning the contents of that speech into reality is quite another.

    Your party and the cheerleaders on here are profoundly unserious.
    Good morning

    And giveover

    Badenoch gave a totally unexpected and successful speech that galvanised her audience and has given her party lots of policies, and of scrapping stamp duty has been well received from think tanks and Paul Johnson formally of the IFS who said yesterday it is the worst of many bad taxes

    Your mixture of cynicism and satire is par for the cop* but at least this conservative is pleased to see conservative policies and Jenrick put back in his box

    I don't believe I was being remotely cynical or satirical. If you want satire I can write all day about letter boxes and an offensive description of a smile.

    You would be the first to criticise ( and justifiably so) an unfunded Reeves pledge. And make no mistake there is nothing in the credit column to match the tax cut in the debit column, except for a nebulous notion of cutting wastage.

    If she has done enough to put Jenrick back in his box and take some points from Reform I'll drink to that, but my point stands, her welcome tax cut debit does not demonstrate a corresponding credit.

    *If you don't like me posting on here you could always ask TSE politely to transfer me from "member" to " applicant" status, that way I can still access and read your posts but no longer post myself. There, that seems like a neat compromise.
    At times you really are very silly as demonstrated by your last paragraph

    4.5 billion cost as quoted by the IFS is eminently doable
    Why didn't your party do it fifteen months ago if it is so easy? You are still £7b shy of the stamp duty shortfall even if I accept that £4.5b figure although as Kemi stated yesterday stamp duty only brings in £9b and not £11.6b, so I've found another £2.6 billion for you. It's easy this smoke and mirrors accounting.
    To be fair there is no persuading you but then you are not her target audience

    Yesterday she gave the best speech of any of this year's conferences to wide acclaim, and has set a very different course with real policies that will be discussed widely but she has got herself on the front pages, galvanised her audience, and started the long journey back and sidelined Jenrick

    It may have been the best speech of the season, but it's not above the line on the front of either the Sun or Mail website. If the Tories want to be + in the polls then they needed to have been there when people doom scrolled first thing.
    The mail's editorial is positive
    On the desktop the headline on the Mail is Trump/Gaza. You have to scroll rather a long way to find the positive Op Ed.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 204
    Here's hoping Starmer can smash these gangs as well

    https://news.stv.tv/east-central/gang-attempt-to-steal-bike-using-angle-grinder-while-riding-hire-scheme-cycles

    Concerning rise in balaclava clad thugs
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,343

    Sandpit said:

    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.

    Fetterman is turning into quite the independent Democrat, just as Paul and Mukowski are quite the independent Republicans, all three of them voting their mind on the actual issue rather than toeing the party line.

    Isn’t the theory that wars are supposed to be authorised by Congress, but that it’s not actually happened that way since WWII?
    It's fake news, specifically Congress hasn't declared war since WWII but Congress has, inter alia, authorised the use of force on many occasions since WWII.

    Often forgotten the Senate came very close to not authorising the first Gulf War, it only passed 52/47.
    Yet voted 77/23 for the second Gulf War.

    John Kerry being perhaps the most noticeable of the mind changers.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,824
    Cyclefree said:

    Re stamp duty, perhaps I'm being thick but if the supply of houses doesn't increase and buyers now have more money with which to buy, won't this just lead to an increase in house prices which will make things even harder for those trying to get on the property ladder?

    Anyway, in @Leon's spirit of eye-catching policies, here are mine:-

    1. Taser people blasting music out of their phones in public. Also anyone doing their toilette in public or eating with their mouth open. And men spreading their legs unnecessarily when sitting down. Also people leaving their filled dog poo bags hanging on trees or fences.
    2. Compulsory pedicures for everyone wearing sandals in summer.
    3. 50% VAT on all hot drinks with chocolate sprinkled on top (other than hot chocolate).
    4. Anyone with a plastic lawn will have their property confiscated unless said grotesquerie is removed and replaced by a lawn and/or plants.
    5. Shoe designers and manufacturers to be reminded that it is both possible and desirable to make shoes which are stylish AND comfortable.
    6. Women's dresses to have pockets.
    7. A 100% tax rate to be applied to people wearing black coats in winter. It's dark enough already. Use some colour, for God's sake! That's what it's there for.
    8. Politicians commenting on TV programmes in an attempt to appear "cool", "relevant" or "in touch" to be barred from office. We have Dad dancing if we want a cringe-making spectacle.
    9. Fine everyone using the word "inappropriate" when they mean "wrong" but are too scared to say so.

    There: policies for a happier Britain. Or a happier Cyclefree at any rate. And I need a bit of cheerful triviality for today is the day I learn whether the cancer has spread to my pancreas. Which is why I've spent the last week buying new clothes and shoes (purple suede boots!) obviously.

    If I don't, my 10th policy is : run public appointments past the Cyclefree/Common-Sense-o-Monitor and when cock-ups happen, well, you know who to call.

    You slipped that in the post a little - prayers and fingers crossed for a negative on the cancer spread.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,442
    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re stamp duty, perhaps I'm being thick but if the supply of houses doesn't increase and buyers now have more money with which to buy, won't this just lead to an increase in house prices which will make things even harder for those trying to get on the property ladder?

    House prices will increase to absorb any stamp duty cut, absolutely. But the point of eliminating stamp duty is not to cut house prices, it’s to reduce the friction imposed on the economy that stamp duty imposes. Stamp duty massively increases the transactional costs of moving house: That means that people are less likely to move to get a better job, or downsize to a smaller property as they get older.

    Taxes always have a negative effect on your economy because they alter the prices of goods away from their natural level. But stamp duty has more pernicious effects than any other tax - it is by far the worst tax economically. If you ask economists which tax they would most like to get rid of then stamp duty is at the top of the list. We would be far better off if we eliminated stamp duty & replaced it with almost any other tax.
    Transaction taxes are always a bad idea. Unless your idea is to stop transactions.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351
    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re stamp duty, perhaps I'm being thick but if the supply of houses doesn't increase and buyers now have more money with which to buy, won't this just lead to an increase in house prices which will make things even harder for those trying to get on the property ladder?

    House prices will increase to absorb any stamp duty cut, absolutely. But the point of eliminating stamp duty is not to cut house prices, it’s to reduce the friction imposed on the economy that stamp duty imposes. Stamp duty massively increases the transactional costs of moving house: That means that people are less likely to move to get a better job, or downsize to a smaller property as they get older.

    Taxes always have a negative effect on your economy because they alter the prices of goods away from their natural level. But stamp duty has more pernicious effects than any other tax - it is by far the worst tax economically. If you ask economists which tax they would most like to get rid of then stamp duty is at the top of the list. We would be far better off if we eliminated stamp duty & replaced it with almost any other tax.
    NB. Economists have calculated that the deadweight cost of stamp duty is so high that we get back most of the money it raises simply by getting rid of it.

    If they’re right, then it’s yet another arbitrary self-inflicted wound that we have imposed on ourselves for no reason whatsoever.
    Link to Australian Treasury research showing just that.

    https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/TWP2015-01.pdf

    Of all major taxes, stamp duty has the biggest drag on the economy, while regular property taxes have the lowest.
  • I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    One catch would seem to be the Stamp Duty charged on Stock Exchange transactions. In effect it's a cheap and easy way of raising a lot of money for HM Treasury, but it's still a tax on the transfer of property. I am not sure if or how the various classes of property can be distinguished from each other. "Buy my semi in Penge for £20m and get the curtains, carpets and a portfolio of free shares" might be a worthwhile ransaction for some hedge funds.
    Erm, what ? Distinguishing shares from land from other things is not the hardest task HMRC has ever faced.

    SD/SDRT on shares is definitely a bad tax and should be abolished, but it doesn't have to be done in coordination with abolishing SDLT on land.
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 204
    edited 9:37AM

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved* if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results

    Edit *temporary respite
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    MaxPB said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    A good speech only makes a difference if people are listening. No one is listening to the Tories no matter how much the Times or Tele might want it to be otherwise. I still think the viable strategy for the Tories is to go on a 3 year apology tour across the country, listen to voters and not mess about with policies except to say it's time to cut spending and live within our means. Then in election year having spent the last 3 years apologising people will be willing to give them a hearing and they avoid a wipe out
    From last night's focus group I am told the general consensus is that

    1) The Tories won't be in power to enact the policy
    2) If it is so popular why didn't they do it in the last fourteen years
    3) It won't help with the cost of living issues

    The ones who have heard anything the conference mostly heard about the chocolate bar.

    Ordinary people do not follow politics in the way we do.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    DoctorG said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results
    It's 36 MPs now, as the trigger is 30% of MPs.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,824
    DoctorG said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results
    It's changed to 30% of MPs, double what it was, I think.
  • Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re stamp duty, perhaps I'm being thick but if the supply of houses doesn't increase and buyers now have more money with which to buy, won't this just lead to an increase in house prices which will make things even harder for those trying to get on the property ladder?

    House prices will increase to absorb any stamp duty cut, absolutely. But the point of eliminating stamp duty is not to cut house prices, it’s to reduce the friction imposed on the economy that stamp duty imposes. Stamp duty massively increases the transactional costs of moving house: That means that people are less likely to move to get a better job, or downsize to a smaller property as they get older.

    Taxes always have a negative effect on your economy because they alter the prices of goods away from their natural level. But stamp duty has more pernicious effects than any other tax - it is by far the worst tax economically. If you ask economists which tax they would most like to get rid of then stamp duty is at the top of the list. We would be far better off if we eliminated stamp duty & replaced it with almost any other tax.
    Exactly. If we accept that overall tax policy should exert x amount of downward pressure on house prices, doing that through a regular periodic land value tax is far better than doing it through a one off transaction tax.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,049
    DoctorG said:

    Here's hoping Starmer can smash these gangs as well

    https://news.stv.tv/east-central/gang-attempt-to-steal-bike-using-angle-grinder-while-riding-hire-scheme-cycles

    Concerning rise in balaclava clad thugs

    No face no case as they say in SE London.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,378
    MattW said:

    This is genuinely funny from Reform in West Northamptonshire. Their Deputy Council Leader has decided to be Churchillian, in that Churchill is known for doing his politics in the bath.

    So he attended a Council Training Council from his bathtub via his Ipad.

    Churchill, however, did not have the problem that he had a tablet that could broadcast to the Treasury Management training course a live feed of his willy descending into the soap suds .

    (Deep link to remarks in the full Council meeting - about a minute)
    https://youtu.be/g_NGepwlKZ8?t=14762

    Chap obviously needs to be on Only Fans not TikTok.

    Do many Councillors do this? We had claims in Ashfield during Covid of our Deputy Council Leader Tom Hollis, the one with a long list of criminal offences, holding Council meetings in his hot tub.

    The 'B-Arkers' are truly in charge now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,370
    Phil said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    An aside - this is the magic of Trumpism. Somehow Trump managed to square the populist circle of getting people to vote for him whilst promising things that would directly hurt them. The Mexican immigrants with dodgy visa histories who voted for him in the belief that he was only talking about the “bad immigrants” and couldn’t possibly mean them are the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

    As part of this Trump achieved the political nirvana of becoming untouchable by any actual policy contradiction or scandal. He tapped into something fundamental in the human psyche - something that other politicians struggled to reach. Perhaps being a raging narcissists craving the crowd’s approval & cunning enough to work out what to say to attain it is a prerequisite to becoming a Trump-style politician? But you’d think there would have been enough of those out there in the past to do the same thing: Why now?
    "Why now?"

    Fecking social media.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,196
    DoctorG said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved* if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results

    Edit *temporary respite
    As I posted yesterday

    Potentially.

    Somebody has messaged me this scenario given Jenrick doesn't want Badenoch ousted until after next year's elections.

    1) Allies of James Cleverly get Badenoch ousted in November

    2) They stand aside and let Jenrick become leader in November

    3) The Tories are mullered in May 2026

    4) Jenrick takes the blame and is ousted

    5) Clearing the way for Cleverly to be coronated in late 2026.

    Cleverly might be setting up the greatest ambush since Midway.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,441
    @LucyJMcDaid

    NEW: The Deputy Chair of the Reform group on Cornwall Council, Rowland O’Connor, has quit the party

    He will now sit as an independent, and says his views on how to help local people ‘increasingly diverged from those of the party’
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,787

    I see Badenoch's pledge to abolish stamp duty has made quite a splash, both in the press and on here. But I'm left somewhat baffled. If this is such a brilliant panacea that will boost economic growth and free up the housing market, why on earth hasn't it been proposed before by any government, of both stripes, in recent decades? I mean, it's a pretty easy policy to implement.
    I can't help thinking there's a catch somewhere.

    One catch would seem to be the Stamp Duty charged on Stock Exchange transactions. In effect it's a cheap and easy way of raising a lot of money for HM Treasury, but it's still a tax on the transfer of property. I am not sure if or how the various classes of property can be distinguished from each other. "Buy my semi in Penge for £20m and get the curtains, carpets and a portfolio of free shares" might be a worthwhile ransaction for some hedge funds.
    Erm, what ? Distinguishing shares from land from other things is not the hardest task HMRC has ever faced.

    SD/SDRT on shares is definitely a bad tax and should be abolished, but it doesn't have to be done in coordination with abolishing SDLT on land.
    It does however, have the (apparently, but mathematically to be expected) major advantage of slowing down the frequency of shares transactions (as nobody bothers for merely small profits less than the SD). This, in principle, has a huge effect in dampening the sensitivity of the system to perturbations, leading to crashes ... but IANAE as to the stock market.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,441

    Phil said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    An aside - this is the magic of Trumpism. Somehow Trump managed to square the populist circle of getting people to vote for him whilst promising things that would directly hurt them. The Mexican immigrants with dodgy visa histories who voted for him in the belief that he was only talking about the “bad immigrants” and couldn’t possibly mean them are the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

    As part of this Trump achieved the political nirvana of becoming untouchable by any actual policy contradiction or scandal. He tapped into something fundamental in the human psyche - something that other politicians struggled to reach. Perhaps being a raging narcissists craving the crowd’s approval & cunning enough to work out what to say to attain it is a prerequisite to becoming a Trump-style politician? But you’d think there would have been enough of those out there in the past to do the same thing: Why now?
    "Why now?"

    Fecking social media.
    It's worse than that

    The entire media ecosystem, largely owned by people who want the malignant narcissist to win, sanewashes all the crazy and amplifies the bullshit
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 204

    MaxPB said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    A good speech only makes a difference if people are listening. No one is listening to the Tories no matter how much the Times or Tele might want it to be otherwise. I still think the viable strategy for the Tories is to go on a 3 year apology tour across the country, listen to voters and not mess about with policies except to say it's time to cut spending and live within our means. Then in election year having spent the last 3 years apologising people will be willing to give them a hearing and they avoid a wipe out
    From last night's focus group I am told the general consensus is that

    1) The Tories won't be in power to enact the policy
    2) If it is so popular why didn't they do it in the last fourteen years
    3) It won't help with the cost of living issues

    The ones who have heard anything the conference mostly heard about the chocolate bar.

    Ordinary people do not follow politics in the way we do.
    When Blair came to power in 1997 the default line from Lab MPs for a number of years was they had to sort out 18 years of Tory misrule first then get governing. Not hearing so much about the previous 14 years governance from spin doctors this time, maybe as Starmer and Reeves have made more of a mess of things than expected.

    People have long memories as now ex Lib Dem MPs found out in 2015.

    The Tories need more policies to help young people, those who want to start families, grow their businesses and ditch the triple lock. Stop pandering to Farage and the agenda he wants to set. It's likely too late for May 26, the long term aim should be survival rather than governing in 2029
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 204

    DoctorG said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results
    It's 36 MPs now, as the trigger is 30% of MPs.
    Thankyou, wasn't aware
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,351
    DoctorG said:

    MaxPB said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    A good speech only makes a difference if people are listening. No one is listening to the Tories no matter how much the Times or Tele might want it to be otherwise. I still think the viable strategy for the Tories is to go on a 3 year apology tour across the country, listen to voters and not mess about with policies except to say it's time to cut spending and live within our means. Then in election year having spent the last 3 years apologising people will be willing to give them a hearing and they avoid a wipe out
    From last night's focus group I am told the general consensus is that

    1) The Tories won't be in power to enact the policy
    2) If it is so popular why didn't they do it in the last fourteen years
    3) It won't help with the cost of living issues

    The ones who have heard anything the conference mostly heard about the chocolate bar.

    Ordinary people do not follow politics in the way we do.
    When Blair came to power in 1997 the default line from Lab MPs for a number of years was they had to sort out 18 years of Tory misrule first then get governing. Not hearing so much about the previous 14 years governance from spin doctors this time, maybe as Starmer and Reeves have made more of a mess of things than expected.

    People have long memories as now ex Lib Dem MPs found out in 2015.

    The Tories need more policies to help young people, those who want to start families, grow their businesses and ditch the triple lock. Stop pandering to Farage and the agenda he wants to set. It's likely too late for May 26, the long term aim should be survival rather than governing in 2029
    The ironic thing there is that Blair inherited a pretty good economy. He pretty much trod the line for his first term, but after 2001 Brown opened the spending taps and it all started to fall apart.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,810
    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    (Especially @HYUFD - good to have you around a bit more, though I somewhat vehemently disagree with the posts I have seen on the last thread !)

    In other news, forget Destry - Pochinocchio Rides Again.

    Summary

    This one is fairly comprehensible - it's a normal Pochin faceplant. Sarah Pochin helped a charity that uses the Boxing Club premises avoid a funding reduction, then filmed a video without permission claiming that she had helped the Boxing Club itself - leading to the statement above. It's pure lack of attention to detail. Her response was "there has been some confusion" rather than "sorry - my bad"; that style of slopey-shoulders will cause more problems.

    Is this the first time Runcorn Amateur Boxing Club has been featured on this Site?

    There is surely no corner of the globe politicalbetting.com does not touch.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,690
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From last night:


    Spencer Hakimian
    @SpencerHakimian
    ·
    8h
    BREAKING: The Senate rejects a measure to stop Trump from unilaterally striking Venezuelan boats, 48-51.

    Fetterman voted No.

    Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski voted Yes.

    Fetterman is turning into quite the independent Democrat, just as Paul and Mukowski are quite the independent Republicans, all three of them voting their mind on the actual issue rather than toeing the party line.

    Isn’t the theory that wars are supposed to be authorised by Congress, but that it’s not actually happened that way since WWII?
    It's fake news, specifically Congress hasn't declared war since WWII but Congress has, inter alia, authorised the use of force on many occasions since WWII.

    Often forgotten the Senate came very close to not authorising the first Gulf War, it only passed 52/47.
    According to the wiki on the subject, that 1990 war was the last major military action that Congress was involved in declaring, and that there’s been plenty of critisism of presidents since then for ‘going solo’.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

    Presumably future presidents didn’t like the idea of the Senate voting the other way, the World would look quite different now if Saddam had prevailed against Kuwait three decades ago.
    I'd be curious to know why the 47 Senators voted as they did. It was a pretty clear-cut case of naked aggression against an ally.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,810

    DoctorG said:

    The reality for Kemi is that her announcement yesterday won't stop the Tories getting smashed next May and then she's a gonner.

    I am not changing my betting strategy.

    Understanding is the trigger for the 1922 committee is around 19 MPs? That's a fairly low bar given current polling. She may be saved* if Jenrick ushers colleagues to hold back on letters if he doesn't want to take the flack for the May 2026 results

    Edit *temporary respite
    As I posted yesterday

    Potentially.

    Somebody has messaged me this scenario given Jenrick doesn't want Badenoch ousted until after next year's elections.

    1) Allies of James Cleverly get Badenoch ousted in November

    2) They stand aside and let Jenrick become leader in November

    3) The Tories are mullered in May 2026

    4) Jenrick takes the blame and is ousted

    5) Clearing the way for Cleverly to be coronated in late 2026.

    Cleverly might be setting up the greatest ambush since Midway.
    Too Cleverly by half.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,463
    IanB2 said:

    Stamp Duty is a tax on housing mobility and needs abolishing but replacing with a fixed tax on owning property, which is the bit missing from the proposal.

    The interesting thing is that, if a left of centre party wants to replace stamp duty with a different property tax then they had better get a move on.

    Replacing one tax with another is hard enough, because the losers are louder than the winners. But introducing a new tax altogether is much harder, as you then only have losers.

    The Left is on notice now that the Right will abolish stamp duty - they had better get on with replacing it before the Right do so.

    A similar argument applies to reforming inheritance tax. If the Left don't reform it, the Right will abolish it, and that will make it structurally more difficult for a future government of the Left to raise enough tax to fund public services.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,368

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    Farage’s comments on Ukraine were obviously a result of spending too much time in the US. The American debate on Ukraine in 2024 was very different to, and much more polarised than, the British or European debate. IIRC he was planning to be out there through the summer, and had to come back to the UK when Sunak surprised everyone with the July election.

    If Farage is serious about government, he’s going to need a lot more firm policies in place before the next election, and a fully costed manifesto capable of external scrutiny.
    He’s also going to need a whole shadow front bench.

    He doesn’t appear to have people dedicated to a particular brief.
    Farage embodies the principle "if you want to look thin, hang around fat people".

    He won't want smart people hanging around him. His "Cabinet in waiting" is going to be tired ex-Tories who wouldn't have made the top of government as a Conservative.
    With the exception of Kruger, and possibly Montgomerie, it is only tired ex Tories he seems to be recruiting.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,776
    IanB2 said:

    Stamp Duty is a tax on housing mobility and needs abolishing but replacing with a fixed tax on owning property, which is the bit missing from the proposal.

    Meanwhile in latest dog in Italy news:



    Although right now we are on the beach looking at the French Riviera and Monaco, across the bay

    I want to visit Menton, which you can probably see. It's home to an annual lemon festival

    William Webb Ellis and William Butler Yeats both died there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menton
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,963

    Phil said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The thing about populism is it always has to be on the right side of opinion - to be popular.

    Farage's sole misstep in the 2024 GE was when he advocated a view on the Ukraine which was well out of step with public opinion at the time and he suffered for it.

    Simply running to where the focus groups tell you public opinion is on any subject will leave a party completely tied up in an incomprehensible platform of contradictory policies which will make Government either impossible or so riddled with compromises and broken promises as to be entirely discredited.

    The other side of this is where a populist leadership tries to offer a more conciliatory or moderate line they are then in danger of losing support because their voter base is often more extreme - immigration being the classic example. Yet the populist leader will, if they have any sense, know that the more they chase their own supporters to the extreme, the more they will repel others.

    The art of politics is or should be about arguing a case to the electorate and convincing them it's the right thing to do even when many of the voters will lose out as a result. That's not easy.

    There is for example a case to be made for immigration but no one is making it.

    An aside - this is the magic of Trumpism. Somehow Trump managed to square the populist circle of getting people to vote for him whilst promising things that would directly hurt them. The Mexican immigrants with dodgy visa histories who voted for him in the belief that he was only talking about the “bad immigrants” and couldn’t possibly mean them are the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

    As part of this Trump achieved the political nirvana of becoming untouchable by any actual policy contradiction or scandal. He tapped into something fundamental in the human psyche - something that other politicians struggled to reach. Perhaps being a raging narcissists craving the crowd’s approval & cunning enough to work out what to say to attain it is a prerequisite to becoming a Trump-style politician? But you’d think there would have been enough of those out there in the past to do the same thing: Why now?
    "Why now?"

    Fecking social media.
    Mussolini managed a similar trick in the inter war period without needing social media.

    IIRC some historians have put that down to effectively exploiting radio as a means of reaching a mass audience. Perhaps every new mass media spawns its own version of fascism?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,085
    Cyclefree said:

    ... today is the day I learn whether the cancer has spread to my pancreas...

    Good luck. Let us know how it goes.

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,585

    If the other 38% vote Reform, however....

    Given Reform's current polling there must be a very high overlap (90%+) between people who don't think Reform are extreme and are planning to vote for them.

    I suspect a decent number of the 62% are Reform voters though. They like them because they are extreme, not despite it.
    Like the 5% of Reform voters in the poll last week who agreed that Reform and its voters were racist. A small group, but those for whom it's a feature not a bug.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,078

    IanB2 said:

    Stamp Duty is a tax on housing mobility and needs abolishing but replacing with a fixed tax on owning property, which is the bit missing from the proposal.

    Meanwhile in latest dog in Italy news:



    Although right now we are on the beach looking at the French Riviera and Monaco, across the bay

    I want to visit Menton, which you can probably see. It's home to an annual lemon festival

    William Webb Ellis and William Butler Yeats both died there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menton
    Yes, Menton looks heavily developed down by the sea but doesn't go as far up the hill as Monaco. This whole coast is heavily developed and crowded, even this late in the season. Being up in the mountains is preferable, but I came to look at Bordighera's weekly market, which turned out to be mostly old clothes and shoes, with a few stalls selling cheese.
Sign In or Register to comment.