On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Ha the brass cheek of Lionel Schriver criticising immigration etc on Today and then discussing how she has left the UK and moved to Portugal. So a double immigrant in her life.
More than double. A citizen of nowhere it seems..
'She has lived in Israel, Nairobi, Bangkok, Belfast, and London'
I love the Guardian, they are calling Steve Smith a wanker.
Master batter Steve Smith was not among the squad, though, despite averaging just under 60 in a stellar campaign for the Sydney Sixers in the BBL. Selectors ignored calls to include the ageing great until injuries forced their hand on Sunday.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Of course it's possible. Anyone who ever says "it can't get worse than this" is just showing their lack of imagination.
Thinking again on the locals, Restore is not yet registered as a political party, nor it seems is Great Yarmouth First so is Lowe going to have to run indies or do a deal and run under Advance UK's banner?
Its got Change UK missing the boat in May 2019 written all over it (and starts from a lower potential vote/base)
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
It does inspire great confidence, in light of Mandelson.
Confidence that she had a case to answer.
It's not really very clear either way.
There's that, and the reported fact that a number of the complainants were women (which tend to explode the misogyny defence). But there's also the point what there's no evidence if anything improper in the decade since.
Unemployment continues to grow. There is a serious problem with employment for grads and young people, and as usual the response from the government is nothing and the response from the real opposition is "lets cut the minimum wage to make people poorer"
The error the government made was to make it the same cost to employ the young as a mature worker, plus hospitality employs a large number of young workers and with the NI increases made redundancies inevitable
Ironically the architect of this policy, Angela Rayner, admitted as much this weekend
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
To clarify matters a little, do you call "youth unemployment" the age group between 16 and 24 and do you call "unemployment" those not involved in education or training (NEETs)? The rate was 12.5% in early 2025 so 16.1% represents a significant deterioration. Obviously, we need to drill down a little more to get a sense of who these people are and where we are.
There's a lot talked about graduate unemployment but I suspect the real story is those who have ended formal education and have not been able to find any form of employment (of course, some who claim may be doing "cash in hand" work but statistically I've no idea of the number).
As you say, a serious problem and I remember back in the 80s when similar high levels existed under the Conservatives, there was a fear a generation who would never work and would never be able to work was being created - not sure if that was true then though there are undoubtedly a small number who have never worked.
Solutions? The obvious thought is if there were easy answers, they would be implemented. Presumably we're looking at an expansion of Apprenticeships and similar skill-baed trade qualifications and especially with all the house building there's a range of trades which we should be developing but that can apply across all fields where employers need to look at in-house mentoring and training and be encouraged to do so.
We should probably be looking at the school system and the National Curriculum - why shouldn't all children get an opportunity to learn skills like carpentry, bricklaying or electrical work? There must be retired skilled tradespeople who could go into schools and run classes which might be good for those who are not so academically gifted?
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
It's a bit different here in Birmingham with regard to the upcoming council elections, where Labour are very much in the LD firing line. While "Stop Reform" is indeed a message, presenting outselves as a capable alternative to Labour (and, to some extent, the Conservatives) is also an important message. Regarding the bin strike, for example, we would be prepared, like the Tories and Reform, to move towards privatisation of refuse collection if that's what it takes, but without the associated racism and incompetence. Economic and social liberalism is our USP.
Yes I see that. It's the same in London to some extent - a Labour city. My point was really about the national campaign. Locally the strategies may vary. But in a general election there are very few LD/Labour marginals and many LD/Tory marginals, so the LD national strategy should recognise that. I'm sure it does.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award.
Childless couples working full time?
Around here even including housing costs (which are lowered for a childless couple anyway) a childless full time couple are not entitled to anything.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
I don't know - "social death" is walking into your local Gail's and saying you're NOT voting Liberal Democrat.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award.
Childless couples working full time?
Yep. Stick it in a benefits calculator with a Camden postcode. I would guess the whole of London and SE England that would apply.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award.
Childless couples working full time?
Yep. Stick it in a benefits calculator with a Camden postcode.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award.
Childless couples working full time?
Yep. Stick it in a benefits calculator with a Camden postcode.
Any quantity on this supposed "plenty" as the overwhelming majority of the country is not Camden.
Give a quantity for your "plenty" as a full time working couple with a postcode like mine are entitled to diddly squat.
Even with housing costs being far too high for my liking.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Brits want more defence, but don't want to pay for it.
And still want to rejoin the EU.
Something something cake. Presumably they unsaid bit on rejoining the EU is "as long as we don't have to pay for it or inconvenience ourselves in any way".
We need a shadowy patriot to fund research into how to sell the "doing desirable stuff costs money and taxes are how that money is obtained- it's just arithmetic" message to a sceptical public.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Stephen Kinnock.
I am so pleased my fellow posters help me and pick up my faux pas
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Emergency legislation to cancel elections would look.. poorer than losing a court case.
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
Brits want more defence, but don't want to pay for it.
And still want to rejoin the EU.
Something something cake. Presumably they unsaid bit on rejoining the EU is "as long as we don't have to pay for it or inconvenience ourselves in any way".
We need a shadowy patriot to fund research into how to sell the "doing desirable stuff costs money and taxes are how that money is obtained- it's just arithmetic" message to a sceptical public.
Nah, our shadowy patriots will set up a cakeist party and win every election for the forseeable future. Vote for more for less, it makes common sense.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Or otherwise suppress demand with a flat 1% property tax. But yes, it's two-fold: we've ended up with a labour market where lots of employers are subsidised via benefits for working people, and a housing market where landlords also subsided by benefits.
Compare with Nordic countries which have much lower poverty rates, while spending much less on welfare (for working people).
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Emergency legislation to cancel elections would look.. poorer than losing a court case.
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
Either that or it was a bullshit claim where the pain of defending it in public exceeded the pain of conceding in private.
The sort of thing a very prominent American has always done, and continues to do.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
To respond to your edit the issue is supply and demand.
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
Thinking again on the locals, Restore is not yet registered as a political party, nor it seems is Great Yarmouth First so is Lowe going to have to run indies or do a deal and run under Advance UK's banner?
Its got Change UK missing the boat in May 2019 written all over it (and starts from a lower potential vote/base)
Presumably the Electoral Commission needs to pull its finger out. Although I would imagine Lowe spoke to them ask asked how far before the nomination deadline he needed to make the application.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Emergency legislation to cancel elections would look.. poorer than losing a court case.
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
Either that or it was a bullshit claim where the pain of defending it in public exceeded the pain of conceding in private.
The sort of thing a very prominent American has always done, and continues to do.
Unfortunately we may never know, as legal advice is (for some reason I've never understood) privileged.
As voters and taxpayers I think it is reasonable to be told in what way a government minister was proposing to act illegally, and why the government has just had to spend a load of money holding elections and settling the other party's legal expenses
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
I know you are of the Conservative persuasion and 2024 was rather unpleasant particularly for Conservatives in the south, south west, east (well, everywhere, let's be honest).
The nature of LD support in my experience is "soft" (except at local level when individual LD councillors and MPs can garner a strong personal vote) and the party needs to keep working to keep the support they have and the aim of the election campaign isn't to convert as to make sure those the party suspects have supported it in the past do so again.
Maintaining voter contact or engagement via leaflets, surveys, door knocking is vital - Conservatives used never to do any of that because they thought the voters could be "relied on" but that all changed and to be fair good campaigning Conservatives now imitate the LDs and it's to their credit.
Where the LDs have seats, the local MP will be fiercely working the local issues and campaigns and when the election comes, they will fight on that record of action and delivery - the leaflets and social media messaging almost write themselves.
Forecast for 2029 - it'll be the year between 2028 and 2030.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
To respond to your edit the issue is supply and demand.
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
I agree with the latter part of that, particularly for a full-time NMW worker who is actually taxed to a significant extent too.
The problem is there is no palatable or affordable solution. If you were to adjust the taper rate to any significant degree it would cost billions and make millions more people eligible for benefits. Even as it stands a single parent in Scotland can be on £60k+ and still be eligible for a small UC award.
But as you say, most couples fitting your description on NMW won't be on UC, so it doesn't apply.
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
It does inspire great confidence, in light of Mandelson.
Confidence that she had a case to answer.
It's not really very clear either way.
There's that, and the reported fact that a number of the complainants were women (which tend to explode the misogyny defence). But there's also the point what there's no evidence if anything improper in the decade since.
Erm, weren't the Mandelson/Epstein links from more than a decade ago? There is no statute of limitations in the current zeitgeist.
On these local elections, the principle is simple: democracy first.
Yes there are problems. Why hold elections for authorities who will not exist in 12 months time? Why spend the money on these elections when the outgoing authorities can't pay for basic services?
So I am a little sympathetic to the Labour activists desperately defending the cancel plan even after it's been abandoned. But the optics I think outweigh the costs. Have central government foot the bill, especially as there is likely to be a higher cost loading on these LAs due to the lastminute.com decision.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Emergency legislation to cancel elections would look.. poorer than losing a court case.
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
Either that or it was a bullshit claim where the pain of defending it in public exceeded the pain of conceding in private.
The sort of thing a very prominent American has always done, and continues to do.
Unfortunately we may never know, as legal advice is (for some reason I've never understood) privileged.
As voters and taxpayers I think it is reasonable to be told in what way a government minister was proposing to act illegally, and why the government has just had to spend a load of money holding elections and settling the other party's legal expenses
At the end of the day legal advice is just an opinion and usually a weighing up of risk, i.e. the risk of losing in the courts. “The AG warned it would be illegal/legal” is never the whole story. It’s more likely to be “the AG could not say that the likelihood of winning in court was over 70%”.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
Then we need to cut welfare and pensions to pay for it. The country is just spending beyond its means and importing millions of migrants to try and make the numbers work has created significant social issues and housing shortages. Someone needs to tell generation selfish to get fucked, I'm just not sure which party is brave enough to do it and build a coalition of younger and working age voters to beat the old baetards at the ballot box.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Emergency legislation to cancel elections would look.. poorer than losing a court case.
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
Either that or it was a bullshit claim where the pain of defending it in public exceeded the pain of conceding in private.
The sort of thing a very prominent American has always done, and continues to do.
Unfortunately we may never know, as legal advice is (for some reason I've never understood) privileged.
As voters and taxpayers I think it is reasonable to be told in what way a government minister was proposing to act illegally, and why the government has just had to spend a load of money holding elections and settling the other party's legal expenses
At the end of the day legal advice is just an opinion and usually a weighing up of risk, i.e. the risk of losing in the courts. “The AG warned it would be illegal/legal” is never the whole story. It’s more likely to be “the AG could not say that the likelihood of winning in court was over 70%”.
Obviously it depends on your attitude to risk but you would not usually proceed if court proceedings could go either way as the chance of a humiliating big public L is too high.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
It also means small business and supermarkets higher fewer NMW workers as it rises too high
The real problem, I think, is that regulation looks like it is free to the Government.
So there is no *immediate* negative feedback from increasing minimum wage & other forms of regulatory spending.
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/2023456213397061787 A few things about this unprecedented disgrace. One, the United States needs nothing from Hungary that would depend on the outcome of this election, but clearly Donald Trump does. Two, weakening Europe is a hobby for MAGA, but an existential necessity for Putin. 1/2 Rubio is visiting Fico and Orban, who aren’t ideologically aligned but are the most anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia leaders. There is no diplomatic or geopolitical reasoning for the White House to prioritize their success unless directed to do so by the Kremlin. 2/2
Because they secretly want them to lose and know that a Trump endorsement is toxic?
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
Then we need to cut welfare and pensions to pay for it. The country is just spending beyond its means and importing millions of migrants to try and make the numbers work has created significant social issues and housing shortages. Someone needs to tell generation selfish to get fucked, I'm just not sure which party is brave enough to do it and build a coalition of younger and working age voters to beat the old baetards at the ballot box.
I don’t disagree but realistically it’s not going to happen for the foreseeable
The next crisis in EU - US relations will be Hungarian elections on April 12. Trump & Putin’s puppet Orban is trailing by 10 points but likely will try and steal elections. Watch for mass demonstrations and use of force then by Orban, backed by Trump & Putin. https://x.com/tashecon/status/2023377312910028909
Apart from warm words for kindred spirit, back by the US in wot way?
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
To respond to your edit the issue is supply and demand.
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
I agree with the latter part of that, particularly for a full-time NMW worker who is actually taxed to a significant extent too.
The problem is there is no palatable or affordable solution. If you were to adjust the taper rate to any significant degree it would cost billions and make millions more people eligible for benefits. Even as it stands a single parent in Scotland can be on £60k+ and still be eligible for a small UC award.
The solution is to undergo comprehensive reform and eliminate the taper altogether by merging tax and benefits together.
If you are on the right you could call this Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.
If you are on the left you could call it UBI.
No its not easy, but serious reform never is. If only we had a newly elected government with a landslide majority.
Your point on a single parent on £60k gets to the root of the issue, it is and always has been about families. That's 2 parents on £30k (not much more than the full time £26k NMW is set at) or 2 non-parents on considerably less, which brings us back to the point that it is a benefit primarily for parents and those without two full time incomes.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Hmmm, the employment rate (PB's favourite metric when unemployment is low) for 16-24 is basically unchanged. It's all from the LFS so subject to significant error. I think the fall in student numbers is at least partly the driver of the unemployment rate for the young.
That's not a good thing though, id we're going to have fewer people in education then we need jobs for them instead.
Do you mean the masturbatathon about the NMW being too high by people earning significantly above the NMW is not the whole story? Say it aint so
Huge numbers are classified as not in work, but not as unemployed.
In addition to the beloved pensioners (rolling on their piles of bank notes) there are large numbers of young people.
Some of us remember when the claims were first made that we needed immigrants, because “British people are too lazy to bother to do the jobs”.
Which was invented because of the growing issue of the permanently unemployed.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
To respond to your edit the issue is supply and demand.
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
I agree with the latter part of that, particularly for a full-time NMW worker who is actually taxed to a significant extent too.
The problem is there is no palatable or affordable solution. If you were to adjust the taper rate to any significant degree it would cost billions and make millions more people eligible for benefits. Even as it stands a single parent in Scotland can be on £60k+ and still be eligible for a small UC award.
The solution is to undergo comprehensive reform and eliminate the taper altogether by merging tax and benefits together.
If you are on the right you could call this Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.
If you are on the left you could call it UBI.
No its not easy, but serious reform never is. If only we had a newly elected government with a landslide majority.
Your point on a single parent on £60k gets to the root of the issue, it is and always has been about families. That's 2 parents on £30k (not much more than the full time £26k NMW is set at) or 2 non-parents on considerably less, which brings us back to the point that it is a benefit primarily for parents and those without two full time incomes.
The electorate won’t even agree to merging Income Tax with National Insurance nevermind the rest
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
Then we need to cut welfare and pensions to pay for it. The country is just spending beyond its means and importing millions of migrants to try and make the numbers work has created significant social issues and housing shortages. Someone needs to tell generation selfish to get fucked, I'm just not sure which party is brave enough to do it and build a coalition of younger and working age voters to beat the old baetards at the ballot box.
We have a government with a landslide majority that beat the pensioners at the ballot box.
They are too incompetent to so anything with that majority though.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Or otherwise suppress demand with a flat 1% property tax. But yes, it's two-fold: we've ended up with a labour market where lots of employers are subsidised via benefits for working people, and a housing market where landlords also subsided by benefits.
Compare with Nordic countries which have much lower poverty rates, while spending much less on welfare (for working people).
Yup, it's a worst if both worlds scenario and there's too much inertia and vested interests to really change anything. Housing costs need to fall and net emigration does seem like the most palatable way to achieve that. Simply halting visa approvals for all but the highest salary employees and cutting visa licencing to known legitimate companies will cause a big drop in inwards migration coupled with non renewal of visas for people already here and we get net emigration of ~2m over a 4 year period. That marginal decrease in housing demand will cause a big drop in rental prices and aggregate demand for rental property.
It's not without many drawbacks but I think it's probably the least worst way forwards.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
No party is brave enough. You still have the Lib Dem’s and SNP stroking the ego of the WASPI leeches demanding they get money they don’t deserve.
Then we need to cut welfare and pensions to pay for it. The country is just spending beyond its means and importing millions of migrants to try and make the numbers work has created significant social issues and housing shortages. Someone needs to tell generation selfish to get fucked, I'm just not sure which party is brave enough to do it and build a coalition of younger and working age voters to beat the old baetards at the ballot box.
Yes we need to cut both but when this govt tried, with its massive majority to trim a pensioner benefit and slow the rate of growth of the benefits bill, as opposed to actually cut it, this govt folded in the face of its backbenchers and SKS has taken benefits reform off the table now and nothing will happen on pensions until the review reports back in 2029.
Although I have little sympathy for people with student debt something should be done about the ballooning cost for some. A change in interest rate will help.
Allow universities to set the rate for courses and make them responsible for collecting the fees.
Yep. And was based on the elections not happening. And used a rather generous interpretation of NEV for vote changes - giving the Tories a NEV of 40% for 2021/22 combined is 'interesting'. I'd want Micky Thrashers interpretation
It also has the Tories winning Ipswich, lolapalooza
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
To respond to your edit the issue is supply and demand.
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
I agree with the latter part of that, particularly for a full-time NMW worker who is actually taxed to a significant extent too.
The problem is there is no palatable or affordable solution. If you were to adjust the taper rate to any significant degree it would cost billions and make millions more people eligible for benefits. Even as it stands a single parent in Scotland can be on £60k+ and still be eligible for a small UC award.
The solution is to undergo comprehensive reform and eliminate the taper altogether by merging tax and benefits together.
If you are on the right you could call this Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.
If you are on the left you could call it UBI.
No its not easy, but serious reform never is. If only we had a newly elected government with a landslide majority.
Your point on a single parent on £60k gets to the root of the issue, it is and always has been about families. That's 2 parents on £30k (not much more than the full time £26k NMW is set at) or 2 non-parents on considerably less, which brings us back to the point that it is a benefit primarily for parents and those without two full time incomes.
The electorate won’t even agree to merging Income Tax with National Insurance nevermind the rest
If only we had a newly elected government with a landslide majority.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
Re NMW – another effect is to collapse differentials (rather than cause knock-on raises up the pay scale as hoped for by some and feared by others) and this has led to people now declining promotion because they perceive more hassle for 50p extra to be a bad bargain. This parallels the phenomena at the top where very highly paid people duck promotion to avoid cliff-edges or go part-time.
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
It does inspire great confidence, in light of Mandelson.
Confidence that she had a case to answer.
It's not really very clear either way.
There's that, and the reported fact that a number of the complainants were women (which tend to explode the misogyny defence). But there's also the point what there's no evidence if anything improper in the decade since.
Erm, weren't the Mandelson/Epstein links from more than a decade ago? There is no statute of limitations in the current zeitgeist.
Here we're talking about a one off, unproven allegation (which might or might not be valid). As opposed to a convicted mass sex offender.
I'm not sure I see your point.
Mine is that in the former case, the lack of any further evidence in the last nine years might be considered a point in her favour. Nothing to do with "a statute of limitations" or indeed criminal law.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm reminded of the partner saying to "when you've only got a hammer everything looks like a nail", "when you're racist everything is the fault of migrants"....
Thinking on '50%' or '1000' Labour losses (same thing almost)
Labour lose 1050 (50%) - 100 to the Greens? Probably 75 to LDs and the Tories might well nick 50 esp in parts of London. Lets give indies and errata 25. Leaves 800 Reform pick ups Reform would need to take about 200 of the Tories 850 (and hold their own 50) to get first on councillors won.
So theyd likely do it, but not by a huge gap.
Labour 50% losses 'not too bad'?
For it to be the catastrophe mooted, 66% losses i think
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Assuming the value that they add to companies makes it worth hiring them. If not they got locked into unemployment
What happened to "the reason why British productivity is so poor is because our labour is too cheap so it's not worth investing in efficiency improvements such as automation"?
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
Does that not cause us vast problems in funding care for the elderly including pensions? As per usual every choice is bad.
No party is brave enough. You still have the Lib Dem’s and SNP stroking the ego of the WASPI leeches demanding they get money they don’t deserve.
Then we need to cut welfare and pensions to pay for it. The country is just spending beyond its means and importing millions of migrants to try and make the numbers work has created significant social issues and housing shortages. Someone needs to tell generation selfish to get fucked, I'm just not sure which party is brave enough to do it and build a coalition of younger and working age voters to beat the old baetards at the ballot box.
Yes we need to cut both but when this govt tried, with its massive majority to trim a pensioner benefit and slow the rate of growth of the benefits bill, as opposed to actually cut it, this govt folded in the face of its backbenchers and SKS has taken benefits reform off the table now and nothing will happen on pensions until the review reports back in 2029.
Although I have little sympathy for people with student debt something should be done about the ballooning cost for some. A change in interest rate will help.
Allow universities to set the rate for courses and make them responsible for collecting the fees.
The backbenchers are craven to the media backlash, if the media weren't driving the outrage about pensioners and farmers, the backbenchers wouldn't care. See the complete lack of sympathy for graduates on plan 2 student loans. Only the damascene conversion of Saint Martin of MSE, the erstwhile plan 2 student loan cheerleader, has seen any media criticism.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Re NMW – another effect is to collapse differentials (rather than cause knock-on raises up the pay scale as hoped for by some and feared by others) and this has led to people now declining promotion because they perceive more hassle for 50p extra to be a bad bargain. This parallels the phenomena at the top where very highly paid people duck promotion to avoid cliff-edges or go part-time.
The whole system really needs to be binned and started again from scratch.
A radical Labour government, with a large majority for five years, might have been expected to run on a New Deal idea for reform - but no, and the next lot, who will offer a New Deal, are Reform.
Now whether the politicans and civil servants could ever actually deliver such a big reform in a sensible manner, is a very different question.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm reminded of the partner saying to "when you've only got a hammer everything looks like a nail", "when you're racist everything is the fault of migrants"....
Property prices are falling in either real terms or numeric terms now. Certainly in London and the South. In some cases major falls.
It is already starting to happen.
The large number of migrants coming in has had an impact on the cost of housing. How can it not when it has increased demand ? Pointing out some lf the impacts of inward migration is always ‘racism’ though. We needed to build more to meet the demand but now it looks like it’s going the other way this will help.
Meanwhile our whole system of building homes is bogged down by ever more paperwork
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
It does inspire great confidence, in light of Mandelson.
Confidence that she had a case to answer.
It's not really very clear either way.
There's that, and the reported fact that a number of the complainants were women (which tend to explode the misogyny defence). But there's also the point what there's no evidence if anything improper in the decade since.
Erm, weren't the Mandelson/Epstein links from more than a decade ago? There is no statute of limitations in the current zeitgeist.
Here we're talking about a one off, unproven allegation (which might or might not be valid). As opposed to a convicted mass sex offender.
I'm not sure I see your point.
Mine is that in the former case, the lack of any further evidence in the last nine years might be considered a point in her favour. Nothing to do with "a statute of limitations" or indeed criminal law.
Gregg Wallace then. It's the same idea. As it happens, I broadly agree with you. When I am Prime Minister, which at the current turnover rate is due in 2035, there will be a line drawn under old behaviours, however reprehensible. But that is not where we are now, or at least, not where we are for most people.
ETA: and I was referring to the sacking of Mandelson for links to Epstein, but not sex offences, over a decade old. No-one said, ah, but he's not leaked market sensitive information or sent yum yum greetings since Cameron in 2010.
Had lunch at the weeked with my wife's uni friends. Both PhDs, E. Asian immigrants which now have settled status.
Lots of annecdotes around friends/acquaintances being involved in abuse of the visa system, with employers sponsoring under a Skilled Worker visa on salary above threshold, and expecting some of the salary is returned under the table. Sometimes this is agreed up-front, sometimes the less honest employers will change the arrangements midway through the sponsorship period. Lots of the work is in what could be considered the grey economy, organised crime linked if not outright illegal. And these guys are educated and from a middle income country, we are not talking about typical Boriswave demographic here on social care visas etc.
On another note, their view seems to be that London has gone downhill over last decade or so in terms of crime, disorder etc. These guys don't have a side in the cuture wars, liberally inclined if anything but a clear view that things have declined.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
Trading local families for remote retirees with no senses of local value?
Bloody hell, who foresaw Hermès being the guardian of the world's conscience.
Suzie rizzio @Suzierizzo1 · 3h In 2014 Jeffrey Epstein tried to cozy up to the Designer brand “Hermes”,but their CEO knew about him & ignored him,but in 2016 Jeffrey didn’t stop he decided to donate a large sum of money to their charity so he could try & get them that way,but CEO Alex Dumas returned the money!
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
To be fair, I think the impact of recent migration on overall prices is overblown somewhat because they tend to use housing stock very efficiently (too much so, tbh - basically slums.).
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
Trading local families for remote retirees with no senses of local value?
Not sure people from England are coming up to retire in Lanarkshire or Greenock. Moray/Highlands maybe...
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
Agreed. And their 'targets' get very tricky very quickly. 50 seats and 11% or so. Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
To clarify matters a little, do you call "youth unemployment" the age group between 16 and 24 and do you call "unemployment" those not involved in education or training (NEETs)? The rate was 12.5% in early 2025 so 16.1% represents a significant deterioration. Obviously, we need to drill down a little more to get a sense of who these people are and where we are.
There's a lot talked about graduate unemployment but I suspect the real story is those who have ended formal education and have not been able to find any form of employment (of course, some who claim may be doing "cash in hand" work but statistically I've no idea of the number).
As you say, a serious problem and I remember back in the 80s when similar high levels existed under the Conservatives, there was a fear a generation who would never work and would never be able to work was being created - not sure if that was true then though there are undoubtedly a small number who have never worked.
Solutions? The obvious thought is if there were easy answers, they would be implemented. Presumably we're looking at an expansion of Apprenticeships and similar skill-baed trade qualifications and especially with all the house building there's a range of trades which we should be developing but that can apply across all fields where employers need to look at in-house mentoring and training and be encouraged to do so.
We should probably be looking at the school system and the National Curriculum - why shouldn't all children get an opportunity to learn skills like carpentry, bricklaying or electrical work? There must be retired skilled tradespeople who could go into schools and run classes which might be good for those who are not so academically gifted?
When I was at Grammar School, a l..o…..n…….g time ago, we had woodwork and metalwork classes. They were useful, if only to confirm that I was totally unsuited to any form of practical work.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
LD activists tend to overestimate the sincerity of their support, and also the degree to which they're viewed as progressives by the young. Most LD voters I encounter in the wild are more 'not Tory or Labour', rather than studiously following the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever.
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
Even I, as an activist, don't studiously follow the debates at the Spring Conference in Harrogate or whatever! I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance: 1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally. 2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local. 3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well. 4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities. My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000. LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
That Cyril Smith - he had a big personality...
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
You're hoping not forecasting. Don't let your emotions lose you money.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
To clarify matters a little, do you call "youth unemployment" the age group between 16 and 24 and do you call "unemployment" those not involved in education or training (NEETs)? The rate was 12.5% in early 2025 so 16.1% represents a significant deterioration. Obviously, we need to drill down a little more to get a sense of who these people are and where we are.
There's a lot talked about graduate unemployment but I suspect the real story is those who have ended formal education and have not been able to find any form of employment (of course, some who claim may be doing "cash in hand" work but statistically I've no idea of the number).
As you say, a serious problem and I remember back in the 80s when similar high levels existed under the Conservatives, there was a fear a generation who would never work and would never be able to work was being created - not sure if that was true then though there are undoubtedly a small number who have never worked.
Solutions? The obvious thought is if there were easy answers, they would be implemented. Presumably we're looking at an expansion of Apprenticeships and similar skill-baed trade qualifications and especially with all the house building there's a range of trades which we should be developing but that can apply across all fields where employers need to look at in-house mentoring and training and be encouraged to do so.
We should probably be looking at the school system and the National Curriculum - why shouldn't all children get an opportunity to learn skills like carpentry, bricklaying or electrical work? There must be retired skilled tradespeople who could go into schools and run classes which might be good for those who are not so academically gifted?
When I was at Grammar School, a l..o…..n…….g time ago, we had woodwork and metalwork classes. They were useful, if only to confirm that I was totally unsuited to any form of practical work.
Workshops take up lots of space, need lots of equipment and consumables and technican support. That all costs money that schools can't really spare. The funding situation in FE (where this sort of teaching still does happen) has been utterly screwed since 2010 or so to protect schools.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
I simply see it differently in my part of the world to you.
Yes of course we can blame Boris and those who slavishly cheered him on in 2019 for the wave of migration which was of course the response to cutting out Freedom of Movement from the EU.
Many of these "migrants" were also people who either had or obtained the right to live and work here. This creeping ethno-nationalism doesn't help - people have always come here to live with work, we are rich or a soft touch depending on your viewpoint. Desperately trying to redefine "British" in nativist terms is the latest trait in our political discourse.
The demand for new housing is also connected to the fragmentation of traditional family units and there's plenty involved with that and children aged 30 stuck at home with parents because they can't afford to move out so building new affordable housing for rent is a positive development.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Bollocks.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Lower housing costs are actually more important than increasing wages. The only way to actually achieve this will be a sustained period of net emigration. It's clear that there is no appetite among British citizens to concrete over the country to build houses for migrants. The other option now is to go beyond net zero immigration and let non-citizens leave while not replacing them with new migrants.
I'm sorry but what do you mean by "lower housing costs"? If you mean it should cost less to build new houses, I completely agree but there also needs to be a recognition of the impact new housing has on the infrastructure (both visible and invisible) in existing areas. In London, we have the Infrastructure Levy and the Carbon Offset Tax and I'm sure there's still the Section 106 so the cost of construction adds as a barrier to construction but not providing the infrastructure for increased population would also be foolish.
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being obtuse of naïve, do you really believe that net migration of 2.5m over the past few years hasn't increased rent prices? As for the "building houses for migrants" I mean where does the demand for new housing come from? If it's British people buying/renting new builds who do you think is now in the property they vacated? Those migrants live somewhere.
I simply see it differently in my part of the world to you.
Yes of course we can blame Boris and those who slavishly cheered him on in 2019 for the wave of migration which was of course the response to cutting out Freedom of Movement from the EU.
Many of these "migrants" were also people who either had or obtained the right to live and work here. This creeping ethno-nationalism doesn't help - people have always come here to live with work, we are rich or a soft touch depending on your viewpoint. Desperately trying to redefine "British" in nativist terms is the latest trait in our political discourse.
The demand for new housing is also connected to the fragmentation of traditional family units and there's plenty involved with that and children aged 30 stuck at home with parents because they can't afford to move out so building new affordable housing for rent is a positive development.
It’s not about blame or racism - that’s just the deflections.
If you increase the population by x, you need to find x bedrooms (roughly). Otherwise the ratio of housing to population changes.
Same with schools, hospitals, roads etc.
The anti-immigrant types point to the crunch.
The pro-immigrant types have made the mistake of trying to deny the costs of immigration - like everything in the real world, it has costs.
Comments
'She has lived in Israel, Nairobi, Bangkok, Belfast, and London'
Master batter Steve Smith was not among the squad, though, despite averaging just under 60 in a stellar campaign for the Sydney Sixers in the BBL. Selectors ignored calls to include the ageing great until injuries forced their hand on Sunday.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/feb/17/t20-world-cup-2026-australia-national-cricket-team-on-verge-of-out-exit
Its got Change UK missing the boat in May 2019 written all over it (and starts from a lower potential vote/base)
There's that, and the reported fact that a number of the complainants were women (which tend to explode the misogyny defence).
But there's also the point what there's no evidence if anything improper in the decade since.
Ironically the architect of this policy, Angela Rayner, admitted as much this weekend
There's a lot talked about graduate unemployment but I suspect the real story is those who have ended formal education and have not been able to find any form of employment (of course, some who claim may be doing "cash in hand" work but statistically I've no idea of the number).
As you say, a serious problem and I remember back in the 80s when similar high levels existed under the Conservatives, there was a fear a generation who would never work and would never be able to work was being created - not sure if that was true then though there are undoubtedly a small number who have never worked.
Solutions? The obvious thought is if there were easy answers, they would be implemented. Presumably we're looking at an expansion of Apprenticeships and similar skill-baed trade qualifications and especially with all the house building there's a range of trades which we should be developing but that can apply across all fields where employers need to look at in-house mentoring and training and be encouraged to do so.
We should probably be looking at the school system and the National Curriculum - why shouldn't all children get an opportunity to learn skills like carpentry, bricklaying or electrical work? There must be retired skilled tradespeople who could go into schools and run classes which might be good for those who are not so academically gifted?
My point was really about the national campaign.
Locally the strategies may vary.
But in a general election there are very few LD/Labour marginals and many LD/Tory marginals, so the LD national strategy should recognise that. I'm sure it does.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/54010-are-britons-willing-to-rebuild-uk-national-power
Brits want more defence, but don't want to pay for it.
And still want to rejoin the EU.
Plenty of couples, both on minimum wage and living in areas with high housing costs are entitled to a UC award. That's even without children or any disabilities.
And you're the one with endless posts about the incentives in the tax and benefit system - surely you can comprehend that a higher NMW would serve as some encouragement to work, or work more hours?
Around here even including housing costs (which are lowered for a childless couple anyway) a childless full time couple are not entitled to anything.
Give a quantity for your claim of "plenty" .
They've also failed to capitalise on the competency gap left by the uselessness of this government and the last.
After Reform have supplanted them as the third party, they're fast in danger of being supplanted as the fourth by the Greens.
LDs 40-50 seats.
NEW: GB voting intention in @thesun
Reform at highest level of support since September
REF 31% (+2)
LAB 23% (+1)
CON 19% (-1)
LDEM 12% (+1)
GRN 9% (-1)
OTH 6% (-1)
Fieldwork: 4–12 Feb, 2,006 GB adults
I presume this isn't actual real polling but analysis of other polls, the GE result, seaweed and just saying something anti-Labour.
Back to expectations management - Labour losing 1000 seats becomes a satisfactory result?
Give a quantity for your "plenty" as a full time working couple with a postcode like mine are entitled to diddly squat.
Even with housing costs being far too high for my liking.
We need a shadowy patriot to fund research into how to sell the "doing desirable stuff costs money and taxes are how that money is obtained- it's just arithmetic" message to a sceptical public.
Thank you and yes Stephen
We are still not told the legal principle on which it may have been illegal. Legislation seems to give the SOS power to postpone elections, so presumably it is something in the way he was exercising his powers.
https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
BBC News - Warrington: Reform councillor defects to Conservatives - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c309dg89grdo?app-referrer=deep-link
Compare with Nordic countries which have much lower poverty rates, while spending much less on welfare (for working people).
The sort of thing a very prominent American has always done, and continues to do.
Warrington Reform wiped out as Tories DOUBLE their representation
A higher NMW might incentivise more supply, however if it results in less demand then the result is unemployment.
Unemployment is the result of having a price where supply exceeds demand.
The other problem is my usual complaint about our completely broken tax and benefit system.
Any increase in NMW is a cost fully shouldered by a would-be employer. Who with frozen thresholds sees NICs rise on top.
Any increase in NMW is not fully received by a would-be employee. In fact if they are on UC as discussed, then the would-be employee gets next-to-nothing from the rise as the frozen tax thresholds combined with UC taper result in it not going to their pay packets in the end.
If the employee is not seeing a significant rise in take home pay, but the employer is seeing a significant rise in costs, that is a disastrous combination.
As voters and taxpayers I think it is reasonable to be told in what way a government minister was proposing to act illegally, and why the government has just had to spend a load of money holding elections and settling the other party's legal expenses
The nature of LD support in my experience is "soft" (except at local level when individual LD councillors and MPs can garner a strong personal vote) and the party needs to keep working to keep the support they have and the aim of the election campaign isn't to convert as to make sure those the party suspects have supported it in the past do so again.
Maintaining voter contact or engagement via leaflets, surveys, door knocking is vital - Conservatives used never to do any of that because they thought the voters could be "relied on" but that all changed and to be fair good campaigning Conservatives now imitate the LDs and it's to their credit.
Where the LDs have seats, the local MP will be fiercely working the local issues and campaigns and when the election comes, they will fight on that record of action and delivery - the leaflets and social media messaging almost write themselves.
Forecast for 2029 - it'll be the year between 2028 and 2030.
The problem is there is no palatable or affordable solution. If you were to adjust the taper rate to any significant degree it would cost billions and make millions more people eligible for benefits. Even as it stands a single parent in Scotland can be on £60k+ and still be eligible for a small UC award.
But as you say, most couples fitting your description on NMW won't be on UC, so it doesn't apply.
Yes there are problems. Why hold elections for authorities who will not exist in 12 months time? Why spend the money on these elections when the outgoing authorities can't pay for basic services?
So I am a little sympathetic to the Labour activists desperately defending the cancel plan even after it's been abandoned. But the optics I think outweigh the costs. Have central government foot the bill, especially as there is likely to be a higher cost loading on these LAs due to the lastminute.com decision.
Theyd bite your hand off
So there is no *immediate* negative feedback from increasing minimum wage & other forms of regulatory spending.
If you are on the right you could call this Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax.
If you are on the left you could call it UBI.
No its not easy, but serious reform never is. If only we had a newly elected government with a landslide majority.
Your point on a single parent on £60k gets to the root of the issue, it is and always has been about families. That's 2 parents on £30k (not much more than the full time £26k NMW is set at) or 2 non-parents on considerably less, which brings us back to the point that it is a benefit primarily for parents and those without two full time incomes.
In addition to the beloved pensioners (rolling on their piles of bank notes) there are large numbers of young people.
Some of us remember when the claims were first made that we needed immigrants, because “British people are too lazy to bother to do the jobs”.
Which was invented because of the growing issue of the permanently unemployed.
They are too incompetent to so anything with that majority though.
It's not without many drawbacks but I think it's probably the least worst way forwards.
Although I have little sympathy for people with student debt something should be done about the ballooning cost for some. A change in interest rate will help.
Allow universities to set the rate for courses and make them responsible for collecting the fees.
It also has the Tories winning Ipswich, lolapalooza
Are we building houses "for migrants"? That sounds like the sort of thing I'd hear from Farage. The people I see moving into the new rented flats in Barking look like young British people happy to be able to afford (or at least rent) a place of their own. I know some would prefer more home ownership and less renting and I get that but in my part of London renting has always been a big part of the housing profile given a transient population.
Unfortunately all the lovely new boxes overlooking the River Roding aren't helping those sleeping rough under the A406 but that's a dimension of the housing/homeless problem we don't talk about so much. Perhaps they are migrants, I don't know. What I do know is some of them have obvious mental health and addiction problems and resort to petty crime to get by and the authorities in all forms seem unable or unwilling to get involved or perhaps don't see nicking a couple of sandwiches and a bottle of booze from Tesco as a serious issue.
I'm not sure I see your point.
Mine is that in the former case, the lack of any further evidence in the last nine years might be considered a point in her favour.
Nothing to do with "a statute of limitations" or indeed criminal law.
Labour lose 1050 (50%) - 100 to the Greens? Probably 75 to LDs and the Tories might well nick 50 esp in parts of London. Lets give indies and errata 25. Leaves 800 Reform pick ups
Reform would need to take about 200 of the Tories 850 (and hold their own 50) to get first on councillors won.
So theyd likely do it, but not by a huge gap.
Labour 50% losses 'not too bad'?
For it to be the catastrophe mooted, 66% losses i think
RIP
I don't follow them at all.
I think the important factors in winning an election, local or general, are in order of importance:
1. Personality and visibility. Many LD MPs have big personalities and are very visible locally.
2. Positioning. Pro Europe, anti Trump, pro environment, pro local.
3. Performance. LD MPS are assiduous in their constituency duties. LD Councils perform well.
4. Policies - a distant fourth. I rarely discuss policies on the doorstep.
The LDs are very dug in their current 72 seats, - many with large majorities.
My local LD MP has a majority of 17,000.
LDs will retain most of those 72 seats and maybe gain another 10-15.
Only the damascene conversion of Saint Martin of MSE, the erstwhile plan 2 student loan cheerleader, has seen any media criticism.
I am going to be going heavily on LibDems losing seats at the next election. They got the benefit of a perfect storm in 2024.
A radical Labour government, with a large majority for five years, might have been expected to run on a New Deal idea for reform - but no, and the next lot, who will offer a New Deal, are Reform.
Now whether the politicans and civil servants could ever actually deliver such a big reform in a sensible manner, is a very different question.
Without noticing the 9 point gap 9 to 18 for the Greens in current polling
Or the 7 point Labour one 16 to 23
Tories 6 points 16 to 22
Only the LDs have admirable and serene steadiness 10 to 14
I have a very simple model based on Scottish data (HPI, population, household composition, new builds) and, considering that our population hasn't increased much, it's quite startling the extent to which pop change doesn't impact it.
Look at parts of the west of Scotland, for example, where the population is falling quickly but house prices continue to charge up. Wtf is going on.
It is already starting to happen.
The large number of migrants coming in has had an impact on the cost of housing. How can it not when it has increased demand ? Pointing out some lf the impacts of inward migration is always ‘racism’ though. We needed to build more to meet the demand but now it looks like it’s going the other way this will help.
Meanwhile our whole system of building homes is bogged down by ever more paperwork
https://x.com/michael_j_hil/status/2023420519752819166?s=61
ETA: and I was referring to the sacking of Mandelson for links to Epstein, but not sex offences, over a decade old. No-one said, ah, but he's not leaked market sensitive information or sent yum yum greetings since Cameron in 2010.
Lots of annecdotes around friends/acquaintances being involved in abuse of the visa system, with employers sponsoring under a Skilled Worker visa on salary above threshold, and expecting some of the salary is returned under the table. Sometimes this is agreed up-front, sometimes the less honest employers will change the arrangements midway through the sponsorship period. Lots of the work is in what could be considered the grey economy, organised crime linked if not outright illegal. And these guys are educated and from a middle income country, we are not talking about typical Boriswave demographic here on social care visas etc.
On another note, their view seems to be that London has gone downhill over last decade or so in terms of crime, disorder etc. These guys don't have a side in the cuture wars, liberally inclined if anything but a clear view that things have declined.
They backed Farage when it was less cool than it is now.
Suzie rizzio
@Suzierizzo1
·
3h
In 2014 Jeffrey Epstein tried to cozy up to the Designer brand “Hermes”,but their CEO knew about him & ignored him,but in 2016 Jeffrey didn’t stop he decided to donate a large sum of money to their charity so he could try & get them that way,but CEO Alex Dumas returned the money!
https://x.com/Suzierizzo1/status/2023649614675484969?s=20
50 seats and 11% or so.
Their polling average and direction is currently downwards as they get crowded out of the conversation
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/syZDDGPwUXI
He's really broadened out his content over the last couple of years.
https://x.com/jonathanpienews/status/2023697615326769357
Don't let your emotions lose you money.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2023694194527592811
Those Flamingos can fly!
https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2023568863695106403
"They're incompetent — at LEAST Hillary's competent! She's just Trump deranged. She's an ANGRY woman!"
"AOC, she had NO IDEA what was happening, no idea how to answer questions concerning the world."
"Gavin destroyed California...and AOC has no idea."
"This was NOT a good look for the US."
Yes of course we can blame Boris and those who slavishly cheered him on in 2019 for the wave of migration which was of course the response to cutting out Freedom of Movement from the EU.
Many of these "migrants" were also people who either had or obtained the right to live and work here. This creeping ethno-nationalism doesn't help - people have always come here to live with work, we are rich or a soft touch depending on your viewpoint. Desperately trying to redefine "British" in nativist terms is the latest trait in our political discourse.
The demand for new housing is also connected to the fragmentation of traditional family units and there's plenty involved with that and children aged 30 stuck at home with parents because they can't afford to move out so building new affordable housing for rent is a positive development.
If you increase the population by x, you need to find x bedrooms (roughly). Otherwise the ratio of housing to population changes.
Same with schools, hospitals, roads etc.
The anti-immigrant types point to the crunch.
The pro-immigrant types have made the mistake of trying to deny the costs of immigration - like everything in the real world, it has costs.
I’m pro-immigration and pro-embrace-the-costs.
So we need millions of new bedrooms.