Skip to content

Burnham rules out an early election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,267
edited 8:27AM in General
Burnham rules out an early election – politicalbetting.com

“I’m going to rule it out”Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg in his first major interview as prime minister, Andy Burnham rules out calling an early general election and says “I don't think people want it”#BBCLauraKhttps://t.co/kIb5RbA0VB pic.twitter.com/yMYt8p2UzU

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,638
    First
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,638
    With the polls as they are he’d be insane to call an election anytime soon
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,638

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    Was it a woke version of your holiday though?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    DougSeal said:

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    Was it a woke version of your holiday though?
    Yes because I was near the Mediterranean and purposely avoided all the sirens and one-eyed giants.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,764
    edited 8:33AM
    On topic, though FPT:
    So, Laura K has done a full interview with Burnham for the BBC, to be broadcast on Panorama and I-player tomorrow. But they are releasing little snippets this morning to whet the appetite. Am I alone in finding this irritating? Either release the full interview now, or don't release anything until it's on tomorrow. It's just clickbait to get some headlines today, but is bound to be selective.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    You haven't taken 10 years to get there so your holiday was clearly not an Odysseus
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    You know when Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep the US out of the Pacific War I cannot help but think about that.

    Iran’s New Leader Is More Open to Pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, U.S. Intelligence Says

    The previous supreme leader, who was killed early in the war, had renounced nuclear weapons. U.S. spy agencies believe his son is more interested in building a bomb.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-weapon.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0FA.RqJT.VowB43jSpoci&smid=url-share
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,645
    edited 8:35AM
    We haven't had his first budget yet, a report into it by the OBR, or the banks reaction to it.

    Wait until after October 28th / First 100 days.

    Edit: Or Trump's approach to the Burnham UK.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762
    edited 8:35AM
    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,896

    On topic, though FPT:
    So, Laura K has done a full interview with Burnham for the BBC, to be broadcast on Panorama and I-player tomorrow. But they are releasing little snippets this morning to whet the appetite. Am I alone in finding this irritating? Either release the full interview now, or don't release anything until it's on tomorrow. It's just clickbait to get some headlines today, but is bound to be selective.

    Just you - I could care less.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,968
    edited 8:41AM
    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,192

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    Nolan missed a trick with the soundtrack, though.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jul/23/the-odysssey-music-ludwig-goransson-christopher-nolan

    Should have used Steely Dan.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,968
    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    If reform do implode will it be slowly then all at once? If so, hard to pick the best time.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 927
    Not liking the "or later" option there.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 64,149
    FPT: Dirty side of the track, I think, may be a big problem for Leclerc, and others with even numbers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,281
    Oh well, Mandy’s best pal is off to pastures new. The fearless interrogator of multiculturalism & Islam and Bari Weiss’s CBS News totally deserve each other.


    "Welcome to our last Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips"

    Hurray.

    Trevor Phillips is a woeful interviewer. It may be that his replacement is worse but that's hard to imagine, so let’s enjoy this moment.

    https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/2081282559795741041?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,146
    edited 8:44AM

    You know when Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep the US out of the Pacific War I cannot help but think about that.

    Iran’s New Leader Is More Open to Pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, U.S. Intelligence Says

    The previous supreme leader, who was killed early in the war, had renounced nuclear weapons. U.S. spy agencies believe his son is more interested in building a bomb.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-weapon.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0FA.RqJT.VowB43jSpoci&smid=url-share

    Iran signed the Nuclear on-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 under the Shah, and the Islamic Republic never reneged on it.

    There have been questions around noncompliance, inspections, walking the edges etc, but they have never walked away.

    That's only one side of course, Israel being the other.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,896
    Morning all :)

    As Theresa May so beautifully demonstrated, huge poll leads and strong local council results do not a general election majority make.

    Labour aren't leading the polls now - the problematic nature of the election campaign makes it a gamble. In any case, why risk a 160-seat majority - if the majority was under 10, I could understand it.

    The two previous occasions Labour changed leaders and Prime Ministers while in Government didn't end well which might be an added note of caution.

    I think 2028 is a possibility if it's looking positive for Labour - the London Mayoral election might be indicative but that's now a niche contest in itself and dependent on whether Khan wants another go.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    Postmen back delivery driver who kicked blind dog to death

    Royal Mail colleagues defend suspended worker, with one saying 10 people in his office have been bitten by pets



    Postmen have come out in defence of a delivery driver who kicked a blind dog to death.

    A Royal Mail worker kicked Ethel, a Shih Tzu, in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, last week, causing the pet to suffer organ failure.

    The driver was reportedly suspended by Royal Mail – but postal workers have spoken out in defence of his actions.

    One postman said: “I kicked a terrier that bit my leg to get it off me, and I would do it again.

    “I would say about 10 of us in my office have been bitten. It’s very common, and it’s always the dogs that have ‘never done that before’.

    Royal Mail promised to pay Ethel’s family’s vet bills and launched an investigation into the incident.

    Eve Lewis, Ethel’s owner, said her dog was partially blind and only had one tooth.

    But postal workers said it can be impossible to judge which dogs should be considered a threat, even when dog owners claim their pet is peaceful.

    One postman added: “I felt for that dog and the owner but I also felt for the postie.

    “If you have been bitten, or been threatened with being bitten, it makes you scared. They come snapping at your ankles and it’s frightening.”

    “I’m on his side,” a postman based in the South East said. “If you know the area you can do your best to keep safe – if you don’t then you’re supposed to not take any risks.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/25/postmen-back-delivery-driver-who-kicked-blind-dog-to-death/
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762
    edited 8:48AM

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The issue is that the rate between £100,000 and £125,400 the tax rate is 64.5% (45% tax, 22.5% claw back, 2% NI) - I can safely say few people in Scotland are paying that and they will be throwing it into their pensions - for reference I know 80% of umbrella workers who could earn over £100,000 don't, they throw it into their pensions.

    Thinking about it I'm probably 1 of only 2 people outside the Government who will have figures that could show what is really going on - but given that isn't the reason I have that data I won't go looking...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,896

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    It doesn't - it's called politics. The game is about trying to maximize your own party's prospects.

    Nobody cares what someone said about calling an election in the past apart from those with elephantine memories.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,436
    Frit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    Reform has been calling for an early election but Farage isn't appearing on the news as that creates fairness issues and other parts of Reform have other issues to deal with. Tice accusing the BBC of libel won't be helping...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,146
    edited 8:56AM

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    geoffw said:

    Who could have predicted this? WHO?

    Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m

    A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows


    A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.

    Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.

    Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.

    An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-tax-high-earners-22m-3sb2k3wns

    Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
    It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
    Bit in brackets - why?
    A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
    Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.

    (I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
    Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
    8% of total public spending is on debt interest.

    One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.

    That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.

    And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.

    Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.

    Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
    It may well be the case that currently we need to maximise tax income, but it shouldn't be the rule.
    Here again though, we come back to 'if we ever eliminate the debt, we can transition to only raising what we need to fund our spending decisions.'

    (I nearly wrote 'go back to,' but then it occurred to me to wonder when the last time we did that was, and I honestly couldn't think of one.)
    Actually we probably wouldn't want to eliminate the debt - even if we were cash rich we'd want to maintain a bond market. In the late 80s the government repaid a lot of debt and it caused a contraction in the gilt market. Most notably in some wildly overpaid roles.

    You mean, the bond market might not be able to intimidate everybody and a bunch of fat spivs wouldn't be able to make millions while holding us all to ransom?

    Well, that really would be tragic.

    Think of all the millions who would die laughing.
    No I do not mean that. Can I suggest that you don't understand these issues if you post as such? I hope that I'm not being rude in saying so.

    Bond markets are really important. (All they are is a gauge of long term financial stability.)
    You may not have meant that, but it's effectively what you've said. Bond markets selling long term debt are a function of government failure, not a vital part of a capitalist society.

    Indeed, having pointed out that public spending is not necessarily economically unproductive, I'd go further and point out that many such private companies are in fact a drag on economic growth by sucking money out of the real economy into the pockets of dubious rentiers.

    Would we be noticeably worse off if bond markets, hedge funds and Centrica disappeared overnight?
    Absolute poppycock. And again I really don't want to fall out with you. Long term debt is an essential tool. Money perhaps can be seen in this way. I presume you don't object to money?

    Oh, lor, we're back on cash.

    Look, money borrowed in the long term can be used intelligently, particularly by developing productive assets that will aid economic growth. Building HS2 with borrowed money would make sense, for example, because it would (if Sunak wasn't an anti-train nutjob) have made a big profit and powered economic growth in the north and Midlands which would have increased tax take and reduced social expenditure.

    Money borrowed on long term to pay pensions is not such money.* That's what we've been doing for decades and that's where the bond markets have our balls in a vice. When you are borrowing from them merely to survive, they can dictate terms and they are doing so.

    *And I am now looking north in the expectation of an incoming ballistic turnip.
    If you have a ten pound note - what actually is it? It's a bond. You can't go wildly rambling about HS2 as a smokescreen.

    A well managed company will probably have some debt. They have it because they foresee that their growth enabled by the funds will far outstrip the cost of servicing the debt.
    Are you suggesting that the debts we have now are analogous to those of a well managed company?

    If so, will you be taking out a mortgage to buy this bridge I am offering for sale?

    By the way, I would love to ramble around HS2 wildly or otherwise, but as Sunak effectively not only cancelled it but illegally salted the wells to make sure nobody else could build it that would be quite tricky.
    No, obviously we have debts that look like an ill managed company.

    I'm entirely sure you now realise that there is a little gap in your knowledge around these issues. Go and think about it. If your middle name is not 'thoughtful' I'd be amazed.
    My middle name is 'Frank' (yes, really).

    I am afraid you have not convinced me of any gaps in my knowledge. Merely that you are confusing excess bond markets, which are an example of capitalist and governmental failure, with government debt, which is issued through bond markets but would not actually have to be.

    You have also not convinced me that the way they manipulate debt and the interest on it to their own advantage thereby sucking money out of the government's accounts and requiring higher tax take for worse services is advantageous to the productive economy. If you could show that it is used to fund other economic activity rather than massive salaries for people with the integrity of Mafia bosses I would be willing to change my mind on that.
    The fundamental issue is one of the tax deductibility of interest, and it's one of the reasons why BP selling\ its UK solar generation assets to the Kuwaitis is less likely to be a problem for the Exchequer than you would think.

    The reality is that BP today will fund its UK solar assets out of an offshore entity which lends money to the UK solar developer. And so, profits almost certainly get taken out of the UK in a tax-free manner already.

    What we probably should look to do is to find some way of limiting the tax deductibility of interest payments. (Differing rules on thr tax deductibility of interest also screws up the rental market because it effectively subsidises corporate landlords and penalises personal landlords.)
    Why we adopt fiscal policies which encourage the draining of assets from the country is an interesting question.

    Part of it, I think, is the fetishisation of the market by every government since at least the 80s, without a corresponding understanding (or even desire to understand on the part of politicians) of how markets operate, and to whose benefit.
    We have tied ourselves to the philosophy/religion of globalisation. And done so in the most extreme way. It is great in theory but often bloody awful in practice.
    No, it is the breakdown of globalisation which is causing the current problems.
    I know what you mean, but the success of globalisation also causes the problems. When transport costs fall to a certain amount (as it did with containerisation), it becomes cheaper and more profitable to locate industries outside the UK and ship the product in. That's what globalisation is. But the state then becomes very vulnerable to external disruption or outside coercion. We can no longer build a functioning Armed Forces, we can be blackmailed by oil or gas producers like Saudi and Russia, goods can be supplied with spyware or withheld from China, the US can withdraw NATO cover on a pretext, and so on. Starmer, and possibly Burnham, failed to grasp this which is why Starmer was such a bad PM. I may have mentioned that.
    With all due respect, those issues are not new. When Winston Churchill proposed moving the fleet from coal to oil in the early 1900s, it was recognised that the result of that was that Britain would no longer be able to provide the fuel for its fleet. But the alternative was that our fleet would not be as capable as those who had gone down the oil route.
    Then what options do we have? Are we going to see the dissolution of the nation state, with no or wildly inadequate armed forces, an economy built on importing poorer and poorer people to plug the gap left by more and more rich people emigrating, selling more and more land to foreign pension firms so that they can build skyscraper flats to those poor people for an exorbitant rent and export the rent to foreign lands, lending more and more money so we can pay people to be unemployed and keep old people alive for thirty years, whilst anybody with a good idea fucks off, any company that makes a profit leaves, Parliament is neutered, and governments become Potemkin bodies issuing commands that won't be obeyed due to judicial reviews whilst providing just enough entertainment to keep podcasters chatting whilst the discipline of journalism crumbles into the dust and the only communication bodies listened to just plug sex and racism all day until people explode.

    It's like one of those old dystopian futures where everything falls apart and I really didn't envisage my later years stuck under radio telescopes near Rngstone Round wondering how to stop it. And I am frankly out of ideas.
    Excellent post.
    This looks like an interesting conversation, I don't disagree with @viewcode's last post, though would add that every government since 1979 has enabled or pushed the globalisation agenda.
    Agree - it's an important conversation. The EU has moved (or is moving) in all kinds of areas to ensure that there is at least a European alternative, over time, outside US Government control in a number of areas of dependency.

    A thought experiment is what happens if the USA makes some of the big tech 4 or 5 suspend their services in Europe. What about Visa and Mastercard?

    We need out#r Government to work out our strategy as a country to manage these type of threats. "Can't do nuffink" will not be good enough. And we need to know how it locks in with the areas mentioned above.

    I could be wrong, but I think this is perhaps more of a philosophical problem for the Conservatives, who have little history of skepticism about the USA.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,896

    Frit.

    I'm sure Badenoch isn't - I mean, they'll keep her as leader even if the Conservatives end up with 70-80 seats, won't they?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,427
    Morning all. Almost 3 weeks away and we came back to the smell of burning as the smoke from the Nethy Bridge wildfires drifts north eastwards. As we left Alicante last Monday there was a warning in place about wildfires spreading near Zaragoza which we were driving through. We then drove up the A63 and stayed in Bordeaux, a motorway now closed and a city now threatened by the fires "at the gates of the metropolitan area" according to the mayor.

    We haven't even reached the hottest past of the summer yet.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,111

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The Times trades on its reputation. People assume it must still have editorial standards but it is a very slippery and debased newspaper these days.

    Not commenting on the particular assertion as I am not knowledgeable.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    edited 9:02AM
    FF43 said:

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The Times trades on its reputation. People assume it must still have editorial standards but it is a very slippery and debased newspaper these days.

    Not commenting on the particular assertion as I am not knowledgeable.
    The analysis was by Dan Neidle, the most respected tax lawyer in the country who brought down a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Who is also a member of the Labour Party who also helped bring down Angela Rayner.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,192
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    It doesn't - it's called politics. The game is about trying to maximize your own party's prospects.

    Nobody cares what someone said about calling an election in the past apart from those with elephantine memories.
    It winds me up occasionally when they get really sanctimonious about it.
    Looking at you, Reform.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,706
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    It doesn't - it's called politics. The game is about trying to maximize your own party's prospects.

    Nobody cares what someone said about calling an election in the past apart from those with elephantine memories.
    Good Morning everyone.
    Rain was forecast here, but so far we've seen none of it. Nor, it would appear, from the blue sky and whitening clouds, that we're likely to!

    A few thoughts, more or less on topic. As usual I agree with Mr S; change of PM means an automatic call from opposition parties for an election. Sometime's it's justified, usually it isn't.

    Apart from the fact that Keir Starmer went, via the 11+, to a school which subsequently became fee-paying and Andy Burnham went to a genuine comprehensive, I don't see much difference in their backgrounds. Indeed Andy B went to a more up-market university. (Cambridge vs Leeds). The big difference is in their practical political backgrounds.

    I think that suggesting he, or perhaps his Foreign Secretary, will 'call out' Trump if necessary is poking the bear. There'll be a need to call out Trump before long, sure as God made little green apples. Don't get into an argument there before you have to!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,192

    Frit.

    On the contrary; he has major policies to announce next week.
    Whether they pan out or not is open to question, but unlike Starmer, who appeared too scared of his own shadow to get stuff done, Burnham appears determined to have a serious crack at it.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,645
    edited 9:05AM
    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    geoffw said:

    Who could have predicted this? WHO?

    Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m

    A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows


    A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.

    Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.

    Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.

    An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-tax-high-earners-22m-3sb2k3wns

    Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
    It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
    Bit in brackets - why?
    A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
    Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.

    (I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
    Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
    8% of total public spending is on debt interest.

    One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.

    That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.

    And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.

    Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.

    Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
    It may well be the case that currently we need to maximise tax income, but it shouldn't be the rule.
    Here again though, we come back to 'if we ever eliminate the debt, we can transition to only raising what we need to fund our spending decisions.'

    (I nearly wrote 'go back to,' but then it occurred to me to wonder when the last time we did that was, and I honestly couldn't think of one.)
    Actually we probably wouldn't want to eliminate the debt - even if we were cash rich we'd want to maintain a bond market. In the late 80s the government repaid a lot of debt and it caused a contraction in the gilt market. Most notably in some wildly overpaid roles.

    You mean, the bond market might not be able to intimidate everybody and a bunch of fat spivs wouldn't be able to make millions while holding us all to ransom?

    Well, that really would be tragic.

    Think of all the millions who would die laughing.
    No I do not mean that. Can I suggest that you don't understand these issues if you post as such? I hope that I'm not being rude in saying so.

    Bond markets are really important. (All they are is a gauge of long term financial stability.)
    You may not have meant that, but it's effectively what you've said. Bond markets selling long term debt are a function of government failure, not a vital part of a capitalist society.

    Indeed, having pointed out that public spending is not necessarily economically unproductive, I'd go further and point out that many such private companies are in fact a drag on economic growth by sucking money out of the real economy into the pockets of dubious rentiers.

    Would we be noticeably worse off if bond markets, hedge funds and Centrica disappeared overnight?
    Absolute poppycock. And again I really don't want to fall out with you. Long term debt is an essential tool. Money perhaps can be seen in this way. I presume you don't object to money?

    Oh, lor, we're back on cash.

    Look, money borrowed in the long term can be used intelligently, particularly by developing productive assets that will aid economic growth. Building HS2 with borrowed money would make sense, for example, because it would (if Sunak wasn't an anti-train nutjob) have made a big profit and powered economic growth in the north and Midlands which would have increased tax take and reduced social expenditure.

    Money borrowed on long term to pay pensions is not such money.* That's what we've been doing for decades and that's where the bond markets have our balls in a vice. When you are borrowing from them merely to survive, they can dictate terms and they are doing so.

    *And I am now looking north in the expectation of an incoming ballistic turnip.
    If you have a ten pound note - what actually is it? It's a bond. You can't go wildly rambling about HS2 as a smokescreen.

    A well managed company will probably have some debt. They have it because they foresee that their growth enabled by the funds will far outstrip the cost of servicing the debt.
    Are you suggesting that the debts we have now are analogous to those of a well managed company?

    If so, will you be taking out a mortgage to buy this bridge I am offering for sale?

    By the way, I would love to ramble around HS2 wildly or otherwise, but as Sunak effectively not only cancelled it but illegally salted the wells to make sure nobody else could build it that would be quite tricky.
    No, obviously we have debts that look like an ill managed company.

    I'm entirely sure you now realise that there is a little gap in your knowledge around these issues. Go and think about it. If your middle name is not 'thoughtful' I'd be amazed.
    My middle name is 'Frank' (yes, really).

    I am afraid you have not convinced me of any gaps in my knowledge. Merely that you are confusing excess bond markets, which are an example of capitalist and governmental failure, with government debt, which is issued through bond markets but would not actually have to be.

    You have also not convinced me that the way they manipulate debt and the interest on it to their own advantage thereby sucking money out of the government's accounts and requiring higher tax take for worse services is advantageous to the productive economy. If you could show that it is used to fund other economic activity rather than massive salaries for people with the integrity of Mafia bosses I would be willing to change my mind on that.
    The fundamental issue is one of the tax deductibility of interest, and it's one of the reasons why BP selling\ its UK solar generation assets to the Kuwaitis is less likely to be a problem for the Exchequer than you would think.

    The reality is that BP today will fund its UK solar assets out of an offshore entity which lends money to the UK solar developer. And so, profits almost certainly get taken out of the UK in a tax-free manner already.

    What we probably should look to do is to find some way of limiting the tax deductibility of interest payments. (Differing rules on thr tax deductibility of interest also screws up the rental market because it effectively subsidises corporate landlords and penalises personal landlords.)
    Why we adopt fiscal policies which encourage the draining of assets from the country is an interesting question.

    Part of it, I think, is the fetishisation of the market by every government since at least the 80s, without a corresponding understanding (or even desire to understand on the part of politicians) of how markets operate, and to whose benefit.
    We have tied ourselves to the philosophy/religion of globalisation. And done so in the most extreme way. It is great in theory but often bloody awful in practice.
    No, it is the breakdown of globalisation which is causing the current problems.
    I know what you mean, but the success of globalisation also causes the problems. When transport costs fall to a certain amount (as it did with containerisation), it becomes cheaper and more profitable to locate industries outside the UK and ship the product in. That's what globalisation is. But the state then becomes very vulnerable to external disruption or outside coercion. We can no longer build a functioning Armed Forces, we can be blackmailed by oil or gas producers like Saudi and Russia, goods can be supplied with spyware or withheld from China, the US can withdraw NATO cover on a pretext, and so on. Starmer, and possibly Burnham, failed to grasp this which is why Starmer was such a bad PM. I may have mentioned that.
    With all due respect, those issues are not new. When Winston Churchill proposed moving the fleet from coal to oil in the early 1900s, it was recognised that the result of that was that Britain would no longer be able to provide the fuel for its fleet. But the alternative was that our fleet would not be as capable as those who had gone down the oil route.
    Then what options do we have? Are we going to see the dissolution of the nation state, with no or wildly inadequate armed forces, an economy built on importing poorer and poorer people to plug the gap left by more and more rich people emigrating, selling more and more land to foreign pension firms so that they can build skyscraper flats to those poor people for an exorbitant rent and export the rent to foreign lands, lending more and more money so we can pay people to be unemployed and keep old people alive for thirty years, whilst anybody with a good idea fucks off, any company that makes a profit leaves, Parliament is neutered, and governments become Potemkin bodies issuing commands that won't be obeyed due to judicial reviews whilst providing just enough entertainment to keep podcasters chatting whilst the discipline of journalism crumbles into the dust and the only communication bodies listened to just plug sex and racism all day until people explode.

    It's like one of those old dystopian futures where everything falls apart and I really didn't envisage my later years stuck under radio telescopes near Rngstone Round wondering how to stop it. And I am frankly out of ideas.
    Excellent post.
    This looks like an interesting conversation, I don't disagree with @viewcode's last post, though would add that every government since 1979 has enabled or pushed the globalisation agenda.
    Agree - it's an important conversation. The EU has moved (or is moving) in all kinds of areas to ensure that there is at least a European alternative, over time, outside US Government control in a number of areas of dependency.

    A thought experiment is what happens if the USA makes some of the big tech 4 or 5 suspend their services in Europe. What about Visa and Mastercard?

    We need out#r Government to work out our strategy as a country to manage these type of threats. "Can't do nuffink" will not be good enough. And we need to know how it locks in with the areas mentioned above.

    I could be wrong, but I think this is perhaps more of a philosophical problem for the Conservatives, who have little history of skepticism about the USA.
    It's one of those areas, like pandemics and defence, where the reliance on the US has been overlooked.

    Talking to some developers in Latvia the other week who did work for Russians, they have had real difficulty in getting paid. Work for them has dried up now. If they wanted paid, they would go to Dubai but the threats from the US through their financial regimes means that it is very difficult now. If the use did the same to European countries, there would be some difficulty,

    I suspect it is a weapon that will be used (or threatened) by the US at some time between now and 2028. Or later if Trump 'wins' again.


  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,427
    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,716
    edited 9:09AM
    Never believe something until it’s been officially denied.

    Bet on 2027 and 2028 for the election, after the new PM fails to get anything that looks like reform past his activist MPs who are like herding cats through the lobby?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,111
    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    As PM you want it to be no election unless and until you call an election. You don't want to fall in the same trap as Gordon Brown in 2007 where he allowed election speculation but didn't call one.

    I wouldn't read much more into it than that, except perhaps Burnham isn't planning an election in 2026.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,281

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,669
    Raining in the east London 'burbs!

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,802

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    Binface won’t even be second.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,669
    edited 9:16AM

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    Welcome back, young Yorkshireman!

    "Soon there WON'T be an election where Labour will increase its majority"?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,427
    Battlebus said:


    It's one of those areas, like pandemics and defence, where the reliance on the US has been overlooked.

    Talking to some developers in Latvia the other week who did work for Russians, they have had real difficulty in getting paid. Work for them has dried up now. If they wanted paid, they would go to Dubai but the threats from the US through their financial regimes means that it is very difficult now. If the use did the same to European countries, there would be some difficulty,

    I suspect it is a weapon that will be used (or threatened) by the US at some time between now and 2028. Or later if Trump 'wins' again.


    I've been banging on about this on the Emergency Podcast youtube show for a while. The Hermit Kingdom is a real threat to European banking and alternatives to the likes of Mastercard need to be developed quickly. With European leadership in FinTech I hope this could be done at pace.

    At the same time, I've looked at the non-US alternatives to various things. Paid for a Proton subscription and have already cancelled its renewal. Compared to Google it is practically unusable.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,427

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    Binface won’t even be second.
    Who will be?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,558
    edited 9:25AM

    FF43 said:

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The Times trades on its reputation. People assume it must still have editorial standards but it is a very slippery and debased newspaper these days.

    Not commenting on the particular assertion as I am not knowledgeable.
    The analysis was by Dan Neidle, the most respected tax lawyer in the country who brought down a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Who is also a member of the Labour Party who also helped bring down Angela Rayner.
    The analysis* is no doubt fine; the Times headline: "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m" is not.

    (* https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/07/25/scotland-48p-top-rate-laffer-curve/)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,146
    edited 9:28AM

    Postmen back delivery driver who kicked blind dog to death

    Royal Mail colleagues defend suspended worker, with one saying 10 people in his office have been bitten by pets



    Postmen have come out in defence of a delivery driver who kicked a blind dog to death.

    A Royal Mail worker kicked Ethel, a Shih Tzu, in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, last week, causing the pet to suffer organ failure.

    The driver was reportedly suspended by Royal Mail – but postal workers have spoken out in defence of his actions.

    One postman said: “I kicked a terrier that bit my leg to get it off me, and I would do it again.

    “I would say about 10 of us in my office have been bitten. It’s very common, and it’s always the dogs that have ‘never done that before’.

    Royal Mail promised to pay Ethel’s family’s vet bills and launched an investigation into the incident.

    Eve Lewis, Ethel’s owner, said her dog was partially blind and only had one tooth.

    But postal workers said it can be impossible to judge which dogs should be considered a threat, even when dog owners claim their pet is peaceful.

    One postman added: “I felt for that dog and the owner but I also felt for the postie.

    “If you have been bitten, or been threatened with being bitten, it makes you scared. They come snapping at your ankles and it’s frightening.”

    “I’m on his side,” a postman based in the South East said. “If you know the area you can do your best to keep safe – if you don’t then you’re supposed to not take any risks.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/25/postmen-back-delivery-driver-who-kicked-blind-dog-to-death/

    This is the previous article with the (fairly redacted) video on it, and a gift link so it can all be read:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/191c753f07522bb3

    It seems fairly clear. The householder's child opened the front door, and let the dog out which ran at the victim, barking. The victim defended himself, not knowing what would be happening.

    An owner is required to keep their dog under control, and prevent it from biting visitors. Everything else is wibble and red herrings. Dog size and the rest mean nothing; ask an angry Jack Russell. A delivery worker has a right not to be attacked.

    I'm quite astonished that the dog is being termed the "victim", and I think that perhaps the owner needs to receive an ASBO (or whatever they are called now) or warning to encourage them to run a setup where their dog does not get the opportunity to go for a delivery worker.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,706

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    Binface won’t even be second.
    Who will be?
    Joseph 77? He's top of the list. Or someone who's actually known in the district.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,903
    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    2029 or later remains an excellent lay
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,706
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    2029 or later remains an excellent lay
    Give Reform a bit more time to make a bog of it in the councils they control. Like Essex.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,825

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    He obviously wanted to campaign for the by-election during peak boat season.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762

    Like Odysseus I have returned home and my holiday is over.

    Welcome back, young Yorkshireman!

    "Soon there WON'T be an election where Labour will increase its majority"?
    Given Labour's majority I would be very surprised if Labour increased it -I suspect that's an impossible ask as Labour will lose seats to the SNP / Plaid Cymru no matter what.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,146
    edited 9:33AM
    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    geoffw said:

    Who could have predicted this? WHO?

    Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m

    A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows


    A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.

    Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.

    Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.

    An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-tax-high-earners-22m-3sb2k3wns

    Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
    It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
    Bit in brackets - why?
    A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
    Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.

    (I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
    Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
    8% of total public spending is on debt interest.

    One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.

    That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.

    And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.

    Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.

    Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
    It may well be the case that currently we need to maximise tax income, but it shouldn't be the rule.
    Here again though, we come back to 'if we ever eliminate the debt, we can transition to only raising what we need to fund our spending decisions.'

    (I nearly wrote 'go back to,' but then it occurred to me to wonder when the last time we did that was, and I honestly couldn't think of one.)
    Actually we probably wouldn't want to eliminate the debt - even if we were cash rich we'd want to maintain a bond market. In the late 80s the government repaid a lot of debt and it caused a contraction in the gilt market. Most notably in some wildly overpaid roles.

    You mean, the bond market might not be able to intimidate everybody and a bunch of fat spivs wouldn't be able to make millions while holding us all to ransom?

    Well, that really would be tragic.

    Think of all the millions who would die laughing.
    No I do not mean that. Can I suggest that you don't understand these issues if you post as such? I hope that I'm not being rude in saying so.

    Bond markets are really important. (All they are is a gauge of long term financial stability.)
    You may not have meant that, but it's effectively what you've said. Bond markets selling long term debt are a function of government failure, not a vital part of a capitalist society.

    Indeed, having pointed out that public spending is not necessarily economically unproductive, I'd go further and point out that many such private companies are in fact a drag on economic growth by sucking money out of the real economy into the pockets of dubious rentiers.

    Would we be noticeably worse off if bond markets, hedge funds and Centrica disappeared overnight?
    Absolute poppycock. And again I really don't want to fall out with you. Long term debt is an essential tool. Money perhaps can be seen in this way. I presume you don't object to money?

    Oh, lor, we're back on cash.

    Look, money borrowed in the long term can be used intelligently, particularly by developing productive assets that will aid economic growth. Building HS2 with borrowed money would make sense, for example, because it would (if Sunak wasn't an anti-train nutjob) have made a big profit and powered economic growth in the north and Midlands which would have increased tax take and reduced social expenditure.

    Money borrowed on long term to pay pensions is not such money.* That's what we've been doing for decades and that's where the bond markets have our balls in a vice. When you are borrowing from them merely to survive, they can dictate terms and they are doing so.

    *And I am now looking north in the expectation of an incoming ballistic turnip.
    If you have a ten pound note - what actually is it? It's a bond. You can't go wildly rambling about HS2 as a smokescreen.

    A well managed company will probably have some debt. They have it because they foresee that their growth enabled by the funds will far outstrip the cost of servicing the debt.
    Are you suggesting that the debts we have now are analogous to those of a well managed company?

    If so, will you be taking out a mortgage to buy this bridge I am offering for sale?

    By the way, I would love to ramble around HS2 wildly or otherwise, but as Sunak effectively not only cancelled it but illegally salted the wells to make sure nobody else could build it that would be quite tricky.
    No, obviously we have debts that look like an ill managed company.

    I'm entirely sure you now realise that there is a little gap in your knowledge around these issues. Go and think about it. If your middle name is not 'thoughtful' I'd be amazed.
    My middle name is 'Frank' (yes, really).

    I am afraid you have not convinced me of any gaps in my knowledge. Merely that you are confusing excess bond markets, which are an example of capitalist and governmental failure, with government debt, which is issued through bond markets but would not actually have to be.

    You have also not convinced me that the way they manipulate debt and the interest on it to their own advantage thereby sucking money out of the government's accounts and requiring higher tax take for worse services is advantageous to the productive economy. If you could show that it is used to fund other economic activity rather than massive salaries for people with the integrity of Mafia bosses I would be willing to change my mind on that.
    The fundamental issue is one of the tax deductibility of interest, and it's one of the reasons why BP selling\ its UK solar generation assets to the Kuwaitis is less likely to be a problem for the Exchequer than you would think.

    The reality is that BP today will fund its UK solar assets out of an offshore entity which lends money to the UK solar developer. And so, profits almost certainly get taken out of the UK in a tax-free manner already.

    What we probably should look to do is to find some way of limiting the tax deductibility of interest payments. (Differing rules on thr tax deductibility of interest also screws up the rental market because it effectively subsidises corporate landlords and penalises personal landlords.)
    Why we adopt fiscal policies which encourage the draining of assets from the country is an interesting question.

    Part of it, I think, is the fetishisation of the market by every government since at least the 80s, without a corresponding understanding (or even desire to understand on the part of politicians) of how markets operate, and to whose benefit.
    We have tied ourselves to the philosophy/religion of globalisation. And done so in the most extreme way. It is great in theory but often bloody awful in practice.
    No, it is the breakdown of globalisation which is causing the current problems.
    I know what you mean, but the success of globalisation also causes the problems. When transport costs fall to a certain amount (as it did with containerisation), it becomes cheaper and more profitable to locate industries outside the UK and ship the product in. That's what globalisation is. But the state then becomes very vulnerable to external disruption or outside coercion. We can no longer build a functioning Armed Forces, we can be blackmailed by oil or gas producers like Saudi and Russia, goods can be supplied with spyware or withheld from China, the US can withdraw NATO cover on a pretext, and so on. Starmer, and possibly Burnham, failed to grasp this which is why Starmer was such a bad PM. I may have mentioned that.
    With all due respect, those issues are not new. When Winston Churchill proposed moving the fleet from coal to oil in the early 1900s, it was recognised that the result of that was that Britain would no longer be able to provide the fuel for its fleet. But the alternative was that our fleet would not be as capable as those who had gone down the oil route.
    Then what options do we have? Are we going to see the dissolution of the nation state, with no or wildly inadequate armed forces, an economy built on importing poorer and poorer people to plug the gap left by more and more rich people emigrating, selling more and more land to foreign pension firms so that they can build skyscraper flats to those poor people for an exorbitant rent and export the rent to foreign lands, lending more and more money so we can pay people to be unemployed and keep old people alive for thirty years, whilst anybody with a good idea fucks off, any company that makes a profit leaves, Parliament is neutered, and governments become Potemkin bodies issuing commands that won't be obeyed due to judicial reviews whilst providing just enough entertainment to keep podcasters chatting whilst the discipline of journalism crumbles into the dust and the only communication bodies listened to just plug sex and racism all day until people explode.

    It's like one of those old dystopian futures where everything falls apart and I really didn't envisage my later years stuck under radio telescopes near Rngstone Round wondering how to stop it. And I am frankly out of ideas.
    Excellent post.
    This looks like an interesting conversation, I don't disagree with @viewcode's last post, though would add that every government since 1979 has enabled or pushed the globalisation agenda.
    Agree - it's an important conversation. The EU has moved (or is moving) in all kinds of areas to ensure that there is at least a European alternative, over time, outside US Government control in a number of areas of dependency.

    A thought experiment is what happens if the USA makes some of the big tech 4 or 5 suspend their services in Europe. What about Visa and Mastercard?

    We need out#r Government to work out our strategy as a country to manage these type of threats. "Can't do nuffink" will not be good enough. And we need to know how it locks in with the areas mentioned above.

    I could be wrong, but I think this is perhaps more of a philosophical problem for the Conservatives, who have little history of skepticism about the USA.
    It's one of those areas, like pandemics and defence, where the reliance on the US has been overlooked.

    Talking to some developers in Latvia the other week who did work for Russians, they have had real difficulty in getting paid. Work for them has dried up now. If they wanted paid, they would go to Dubai but the threats from the US through their financial regimes means that it is very difficult now. If the use did the same to European countries, there would be some difficulty,

    I suspect it is a weapon that will be used (or threatened) by the US at some time between now and 2028. Or later if Trump 'wins' again.


    I've been embedded in the Google ecosystem since it first appeared and you had to be invited.

    I'm pivoting my serious email to a European supplier, and I'll probably keep things at Google for online politics, and where I use this pseudonym etc.

    It will be a modestly big exercise.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    edited 9:35AM

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    Good morning

    Terrible fires in Cairngorm and real worry for residents of Nethy Bridge and all those affected across NE Scotland by the drifting smoke

    Our son and his family sail to La Rochelle tomorrow on a 15 day France - Spain road trip, which could not have been timed at a worst moment

    Our doctor and her family have just returned from France with temperatures around 45 c during their stay

    I have to say that even with all the justified attacks on Farage, Tice and Reform they still lead in most polls and seem to be defying gravity

    I assume we all expect Burnham's labour to draw ahead and he is wise to rule out a GE and just get on with governing

    I do have reservations about his 10% IHT charge on all estates but he has maintained he wants cross party discussions and agreement on the defining moments in our politics and I hope Kemi and the opposition parties do engage positively on the subject

    We do not need an early election, whether leaders want it or not
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,592
    edited 9:37AM

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,716

    Battlebus said:


    It's one of those areas, like pandemics and defence, where the reliance on the US has been overlooked.

    Talking to some developers in Latvia the other week who did work for Russians, they have had real difficulty in getting paid. Work for them has dried up now. If they wanted paid, they would go to Dubai but the threats from the US through their financial regimes means that it is very difficult now. If the use did the same to European countries, there would be some difficulty,

    I suspect it is a weapon that will be used (or threatened) by the US at some time between now and 2028. Or later if Trump 'wins' again.


    I've been banging on about this on the Emergency Podcast youtube show for a while. The Hermit Kingdom is a real threat to European banking and alternatives to the likes of Mastercard need to be developed quickly. With European leadership in FinTech I hope this could be done at pace.

    At the same time, I've looked at the non-US alternatives to various things. Paid for a Proton subscription and have already cancelled its renewal. Compared to Google it is practically unusable.
    The problem is that the EU approach seems to be to pass laws aimed at extracting fines from American companies, rather than allowing European alternatives to grow.

    This approach not only antagonises the US government, but is also likely to lead to the American companies pulling out of Europe completely, at the cost of many high-paying jobs, and daring Europe to block their services.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,896
    Lightweight mini Mandelson says what?

    Streeting "I was clear [to Hegseth] that we've not supported offensive action in Iran"

    We're letting the US use our bases to bomb Iran!

    If France was allowing another country to use French bases to bomb Britain would we shrug & say oh well or would we see that as an act of war?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,614
    edited 9:41AM
    Reward: a majority of his own giving more heft and legitimacy to his premiership. Risk: he loses and it's all over.

    This is the calc for calling an election. The first has to (easily) outweigh the second for him to consider going for it.

    Right now it doesn't so there's not a chance. But regardless of what he says today as soon as that changes so will his mindset.

    So it's a case of watch the polls.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,762
    Dura_Ace said:

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    He obviously wanted to campaign for the by-election during peak boat season.
    In a year where boat arrivals aren't anything like last year..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,436

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
    I am getting plenty of adverts to vote Tory on Thursday.

    It's about helping set a narrative, the problem for the Tories I alluded to in the header is that they need to be seen as the principal opponent's to Labour, not Reform, if they aren't then they get seen as a wasted vote at the next GE.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,111
    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,825
    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    The broad spectrum lawfare against Big Nige helps reinforce his lament that the establishment are out to get him.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,810
    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    shame it took the media 2 years to catch-up
  • MattWMattW Posts: 34,146

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    2029 or later remains an excellent lay
    Give Reform a bit more time to make a bog of it in the councils they control. Like Essex.
    That I think is coming down the track bigtime, and could do serious damage.

    A couple of cases about which I do not have detailed knowledge that came up this weekend.

    Ref UK in Bradford have just killed a literally shovel-ready (it would open in 2028) £32m leisure centre project against the recommendation of their own planner, for which most of the funding is external, and the Council has a sunk cost of 5 million on its books.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9n3ew6w5o

    I also picking up things from friends in Barnsley, which has (I am told) been doing some successful regeneration and been succeeding in attracting visitors - bring in something like £400m per year (AI number) in trade. Ref UK are accused of choking off phase 2 of regeneration by running the Council like a burger van.

    i do not think anyone maintains a register, as happens with defenestrated Councillors.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 91,192
    We had a discussion on the last thread about compute in space, and why it doesn't stack up.
    Here's a detailed counter argument, which isn't completely implausible.
    (It's also a pretty good analysis of SpaceX without the orbital compute.)

    Taking the SpaceX IPO Seriously
    https://x.com/almacap114204/status/2064720324294308350?s=46
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,281
    Dura_Ace said:

    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    The broad spectrum lawfare against Big Nige helps reinforce his lament that the establishment are out to get him.
    'How dare they prosecute me for dog shagging!!'
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,637
    eek said:

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The issue is that the rate between £100,000 and £125,400 the tax rate is 64.5% (45% tax, 22.5% claw back, 2% NI) - I can safely say few people in Scotland are paying that and they will be throwing it into their pensions - for reference I know 80% of umbrella workers who could earn over £100,000 don't, they throw it into their pensions.

    Thinking about it I'm probably 1 of only 2 people outside the Government who will have figures that could show what is really going on - but given that isn't the reason I have that data I won't go looking...
    Who knew selling umbrellas was so lucrative?
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,592
    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    2029 or later remains an excellent lay
    Give Reform a bit more time to make a bog of it in the councils they control. Like Essex.
    That I think is coming down the track bigtime, and could do serious damage.

    A couple of cases about which I do not have detailed knowledge that came up this weekend.

    Ref UK in Bradford have just killed a literally shovel-ready (it would open in 2028) £32m leisure centre project against the recommendation of their own planner, for which most of the funding is external, and the Council has a sunk cost of 5 million on its books.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9n3ew6w5o

    I also picking up things from friends in Barnsley, which has (I am told) been doing some successful regeneration and been succeeding in attracting visitors - bring in something like £400m per year (AI number) in trade. Ref UK are accused of choking off phase 2 of regeneration by running the Council like a burger van.

    i do not think anyone maintains a register, as happens with defenestrated Councillors.
    If Burnham plays the pro Paestinian Anti uber Zionist Card, which any half decent person should be doing anyway and focuses on areas like this then Labour can at the very least share ex Labour voters who have flocked to Reform and at least a share of the Muslim vote that Starmer so antagonised.

    Regional Mayors have amassive role to play in these areas too.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Regarding The Times headline yesterday "Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m"

    A rather misleading headline IMO. Cant think why the tax avoiding Billionaire owned paper would go with that

    The actual figures show

    Scotland’s top-rate taxpayers rose 17%, tax collected from them rose £193m to £2.069bn, & total Scottish income-tax receipts rose 9%. The headlined £22m is not a recorded loss—it's one analyst’s estimate that they've punted what a 45p rate 'might' have raised. Hypothesis is not out turn.

    And due to avoidance you cannot make a judgement in year one has to be over a longer timescale

    The issue is that the rate between £100,000 and £125,400 the tax rate is 64.5% (45% tax, 22.5% claw back, 2% NI) - I can safely say few people in Scotland are paying that and they will be throwing it into their pensions - for reference I know 80% of umbrella workers who could earn over £100,000 don't, they throw it into their pensions.

    Thinking about it I'm probably 1 of only 2 people outside the Government who will have figures that could show what is really going on - but given that isn't the reason I have that data I won't go looking...
    Who knew selling umbrellas was so lucrative?
    Just ask the Bulgarians.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,111

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    Nothing demonstrates Kemi Badenoch absolutely nailing it more than pushing a large chunk of her much diminished party into voting Lib Dem. Which would include Winston Churchill as he would be banned from today's Conservative Party:

    https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/european-court-human-rights/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,797

    Dura_Ace said:

    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    The broad spectrum lawfare against Big Nige helps reinforce his lament that the establishment are out to get him.
    'How dare they prosecute me for dog shagging!!'
    At least the postman's union will staunchly defend him on the basis it was self defence.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,592

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,614
    edited 10:13AM

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
    I am getting plenty of adverts to vote Tory on Thursday.

    It's about helping set a narrative, the problem for the Tories I alluded to in the header is that they need to be seen as the principal opponent's to Labour, not Reform, if they aren't then they get seen as a wasted vote at the next GE.
    And be subject to constant questioning about would they prop up a minority Reform government. That's what minor parties have to put up with and it's a no win because you piss off a bunch of your potential voters either way.

    It's one of the things that keeps minor parties minor. Avoiding that fate - relegation from the prem as it were - has to be political priority number one for the Cons. Far more than chasing a win. So long as they can see off Reform they'll be back in power in the not too distant future.

    The exact same calculus applied to Labour at the 2019 election. It's why they pivoted their Brexit policy to offering a 2nd Referendum. With that decision (driven by polling) they gave the win to Boris Johnson but took falling to third behind the LDs off the table.

    Worked a dream. Secured second place and main opposition status. Five years later - lo - they were back running the country.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,436

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
    I am getting plenty of adverts to vote Tory on Thursday.

    It's about helping set a narrative, the problem for the Tories I alluded to in the header is that they need to be seen as the principal opponent's to Labour, not Reform, if they aren't then they get seen as a wasted vote at the next GE.
    Yes, but Greater Manchester isn't where that happens and Reform will be a very clear second.

    We heard all this "Tories still aren't winning in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle" stuff under Cameron in the noughties.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,281

    Dura_Ace said:

    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    The broad spectrum lawfare against Big Nige helps reinforce his lament that the establishment are out to get him.
    'How dare they prosecute me for dog shagging!!'
    At least the postman's union will staunchly defend him on the basis it was self defence.
    He's no stranger to a dog whistle after all.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,436
    The Tories need a 200 seat strategy next time, I'm afraid, and a 30% voteshare target.

    That's all they can hope for. Focus on the economy and fiscal credibility, as well as constructive growth-based reform, and focus on 80 seats.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,592
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    He obviously wanted to campaign for the by-election during peak boat season.
    In a year where boat arrivals aren't anything like last year..
    GB News have even closed the GB News studio on the Cliffs.

    I noticed a rare foray on their website last week , claiming a monster dingy had bought in by far the biggest ever single dinghy load. It failed to mention any numbers in the past 2 months when June and July are usually bumper months.

    Now lets not kid ourselves or anyone as the biggest factor Ivealways said under all Governments is the weather.

    We may have had a heatwave after heatwave scenario this summer but what wind there has been has tended to be easterly, which is the worst for shipping and the most dangerous.

    Calm seas = migrants and sort of easterly or northern swell above 20mph means less migrants and that has fuck all to do with policy and always has!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,797
    FF43 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    Nothing demonstrates Kemi Badenoch absolutely nailing it more than pushing a large chunk of her much diminished party into voting Lib Dem. Which would include Winston Churchill as he would be banned from today's Conservative Party:

    https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/european-court-human-rights/
    You don't appear to have read your own link.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,931

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    If an election had to be held right now, the most likely result would be that the left of centre (Lab, Green, LD, Nats) would just about get a majority which would have the effect of keeping Reform out of government but be so useless that it would revive Reform. Even Labour alone can't show a semblance of unity for 6 days.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,976
    edited 10:27AM

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
    I am getting plenty of adverts to vote Tory on Thursday.

    It's about helping set a narrative, the problem for the Tories I alluded to in the header is that they need to be seen as the principal opponent's to Labour, not Reform, if they aren't then they get seen as a wasted vote at the next GE.
    Yes, but Greater Manchester isn't where that happens and Reform will be a very clear second.

    We heard all this "Tories still aren't winning in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle" stuff under Cameron in the noughties.
    This is Greater Manchester, where in 2015 the Tories won 22 seats, and in 2019, they won 29, in 2024 they won 3, there should be some very easy pickings but right now under Kemi they are on course to win zero.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,797

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Has Andy Street walked away?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Has Andy Street walked away?
    I have only heard of Barwell, unsurprisingly, and Shapps being told no
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    algarkirk said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
    You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,271

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    "they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive."

    Doubt it. That's a complete waste of money.
    I am getting plenty of adverts to vote Tory on Thursday.

    It's about helping set a narrative, the problem for the Tories I alluded to in the header is that they need to be seen as the principal opponent's to Labour, not Reform, if they aren't then they get seen as a wasted vote at the next GE.
    The worst scenario for the Conservatives is that the Reform vote refuses to decline sufficiently. Most Reform voters don't seem to pay much attention to day-to-day politics so much of the stuff most of us find appalling about Farage just washes over them

    The longer Reform remain the highest polling party on the right the harder it is going to be to convince their voters that a Reform vote is a "wasted" vote. Labour will have a far easier task convincing Green, Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid voters to vote tactically.

    I say that as someone who would far sooner see the Conservatives as the main opposition rather than Reform.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 20,111

    FF43 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    Nothing demonstrates Kemi Badenoch absolutely nailing it more than pushing a large chunk of her much diminished party into voting Lib Dem. Which would include Winston Churchill as he would be banned from today's Conservative Party:

    https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/european-court-human-rights/
    You don't appear to have read your own link.
    I presume you mean that the writer of the blog apparently reluctantly accepts Churchill did as a matter of record support ECHR on the principle? Which is Badenoch's purity test.

    And then goes on to posit hypothetically and tendentiously that Churchill might not like the court as it is today based on a selection of unrelated comments.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,696
    Brixian59 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yv4r5g55do

    I still think the next General Election date most favours May 3rd 2029, though I admit, last Monday changes things a bit. The Conservatives and their media friends should plan for an election happening sooner than May 2029.

    Is the Murdock Sunday Paper today just reporting an interesting ongoing police investigation, with the only added something to keep their weekly Reform bash on front page being the Party’s Bank dobbed them in to police several years ago, because it is newsworthy enough today?

    Or has Murdoch and team made a firm decision to stick with the Conservatives, consciously aware the only way to stick with and help the Conservatives in FPTP system, where tactical votes can produce lopsided sided results - my recent header flagged this with evidence - meaning the focussed headspace is to KILL REFORM OFF completely - and, as Farage himself would put it - aye-sap?

    I’m moving on to the next logical questions in this sequence. Will all Murdochs media take an increasingly campaigning, attack dog line to Kill Off Reform? And will they be joined by others, in fact the whole of the right wing media?

    For four crazy years, the right wing media have been in a wishy washy dibblydobbly headspace, regards the two right wing parties cancelling each other out handing the centre and left unearned electoral treasure - will they all now make this same rational decision as the Sunday Times ownership appears to have done, and kill off Reform as quickly as possible, to help the Conservatives in an election which could come sooner rather than later?

    How long before the Murdoch and slightly less extreme Right Wing Media pick up the cudgels for the hidden maelstrom forming like a torrid undercurrent under the kemification and idelological purge going on in the Tory Party. Potential mass deselection of current and former Tory MP;s and Candidates.

    Not inconceivable that a well place header by Andy Street / Ruth Davison or both in the coming weeks could turn the 2026 Tory Party Conference in to something resembling the old internecine Bexit type splits between the centrists and the bog eyed kemiloons
    Nope. You are completely wrong again - Brixo. That is such a weak, not understanding politics answer. I will now attempt to teach you, but suspect you are one of those at back of class, gazing out the window at the girls two years above you playing netball, and not even listening.

    The right wing media have decided to kill Reform off completely to help Kemi’s Conservatives, because they absolutely love how proper right wing Kemi’s manifesto now is - and with her purge of “wets” how masterful, er, mistressful, she is in forcing those right wing policies through the commons.

    After all, where did Kemi’s manifesto come from, if it wasn’t from being immersed in that same right wing reactionary glib echo chambers way of seeing what the priorities and answers are, this media has created and been indoctrinating its loyal followers with? So you are wrong, yet again the truth is completely the other way around from how you understand politics - you need to learn which way round the egg and chicken came -

    They kill Reform to cheerlead for Kemi, because Kemi is cheerleading for them.

    On topic. For Burnham’s Populism to work, he may have to go for the early General Election, before the Populist bounce wears off and starts being called out as just more of the same. So I wouldn’t take how he’s currently answering media questions about early GE, as certainty about what actually happens over the next 16 months.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,325

    Could Farage have screwed this up any harder?

    Thought he could call a by-election to end the media circus over donations
    No parties give him succour
    Main challenger is a bin, failed attempt to paint the bin as the establishment
    Farage continues to one-man-band Reform, giving speeches
    Nobody can cover his speeches as he's a by-election candidate
    More scandals come out about donations
    The only thing people hear about Reform as Burnham takes over are donations scandals

    I assume that he will defeat Binface. But he is already defeated politically.

    Binface won’t even be second.
    Rubbish.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,931
    Dura_Ace said:

    FF43 said:

    Best summary I have seen of the Farage situation from Ben Habib strangely.

    Anyone who's got the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, the police, National Crime Agency, FCA, and potentially HMRC after them, any one of them would rattle a normal person.

    https://youtu.be/Qq_LJ-siMVs

    The broad spectrum lawfare against Big Nige helps reinforce his lament that the establishment are out to get him.
    Delusional. While the faithful will continue to make offerings at the shrine, for the 70+% the receiving of £5million on the quiet from a tricky source is enough. Farage is such an establishment figure that his party is leading in the polls, he is a big mate of POTUS and has lots of plutocratic friends. His behaviour shows that he is out to get himself. In politics each bit of the establishment uses the data they can to do down other bits of the establishment.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    Nothing demonstrates Kemi Badenoch absolutely nailing it more than pushing a large chunk of her much diminished party into voting Lib Dem. Which would include Winston Churchill as he would be banned from today's Conservative Party:

    https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/european-court-human-rights/
    You don't appear to have read your own link.
    I presume you mean that the writer of the blog apparently reluctantly accepts Churchill did as a matter of record support ECHR on the principle? Which is Badenoch's purity test.

    And then goes on to posit hypothetically and tendentiously that Churchill might not like the court as it is today based on a selection of unrelated comments.
    Badenoch test is what it is today not the one Churchill supported, and by the way it is the same ECHR being challenged by individual EU countries over immigration

    If the ECHR has any sense it will adapt to the new politic and make leaving over immigration unnecessary
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,696

    algarkirk said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
    You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
    We’ve been down this road so often before Big G, surely we can learn from it? Simply being cheerleaders for the right wing media consensus, what their idea of priorities and answers are, never works. The collective wisdom of the right wing media is just a lot of drunks in an echo chamber, with such skewed view of the world it has no relation to governing a country properly. It’s too narrow.

    At the end of the day, the right wing media don’t have to go on the floor of the commons and defend it, or go to the country and defend it.

    Their love is a fools gold.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,931

    algarkirk said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
    You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
    One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.

    As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,716
    edited 10:57AM
    Dan Hannan’s take on the £50k vs chance of a million question, and why the poll helps to explain the difference between US and UK growth rates.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/25/dangerous-third-world-mindset-explains-britain-problems/ (no paywall)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,491

    Awesome correction in The Guardian.

    A recipe for a summer spritz cocktail overstated the amount of elderflower liqueur by some margin: 35ml was the intended measure, not 235ml (The good mixer, 18 July, Feast, p15).

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/jul/24/corrections-and-clarifications

    The ghost of Keith Floyd waves hello.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,805
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
    You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
    One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.

    As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
    The policy on net zero is all about transition and to do it in a way that doesn't cripple homes and businesses with excessive charges
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,881
    edited 11:04AM
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Brixian59 said:

    eek said:

    On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...

    So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.

    What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.

    Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.

    So no one wants an early election.

    Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
    One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.

    Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
    I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.

    They did return it, didn't they?

    Oh.

    'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
    So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!

    I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.

    The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.

    If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.

    Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
    'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems

    @HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.

    The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes

    You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings

    The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting

    So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.

    Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
    Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?

    Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
    You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
    One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.

    As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
    Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
Sign In or Register to comment.