Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[Jedi2]

Except that there aren't two 'right-wing' parties at a UK level..there is one, Tory/Reform or whatever they will mesh together as, howling at the moon about immigration, low taxes and breaking up the NHS, and another, which will always prioritise investment in public services and state intervention, which is still a 'centre-left' position. Just as any centre-left party across Europe does, yes, it can involve private finance to aid the provision of public services, but that doesn't mean either that public services won't be funded, or that the majority of said funding will still come from.the state.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

Except that there aren't two 'right-wing' parties at a UK level..there is one, Tory/Reform or whatever they will mesh together as, howling at the moon about immigration, low taxes and breaking up the NHS, and another, which will always prioritise investment in public services and state intervention, which is still a 'centre-left' position. Just as any centre-left party across Europe does, yes, it can involve private finance to aid the provision of public services, but that doesn't mean either that public services won't be funded, or that the majority of said funding will still come from.the state.

Jedi

I've only just finished responding to your link where you are crowing about Labour *only* making up to £16 billion worth of cuts tp public services when the SNP had said they might cut up to £18 billion.

How does a possible £16 billion worth of cuts equal prioritising investment?

 

[Jedi2]

7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Jedi

I've only just finished responding to your link where you are crowing about Labour *only* making up to £16 billion worth of cuts tp public services when the SNP had said they might cut up to £18 billion.

How does a possible £16 billion worth of cuts equal prioritising investment?

 

Of course you go for the upper end of 'between 6 and 16 billion' of potential cuts to (unprotected) budgets (foreign aid, justice etc).

Note that these figures by the IFS own admission are based on a one year projection of public finances and don't make a prediction for potential levels of investment or borrowing by an incoming Lab govt...so the 18 billion is hot air.

[lichtgilphead]

The IFS guy said (and I quote)

"The Labour manifesto found some additional funding, actually, for the NHS & schools - not much - it was pretty thin gruel - but we estimate the cuts to the unprotected services now from the (Labour) manifesto are about 6 to 16 billion pounds based on the debt rules Labour signed up to, the tax rises it said it would do and the additional money it's put in on top of the plans it had  basically inherited from Jeremy Hunt from the March budget. So 6 to 16 billion pounds. So the SNP figure is above the top of that range but as it stands, Labour 's plans do imply cuts to unprotected services."

The only time period that I recall him referring to was "over the life of the parliament". He doesn't say anything about time periods in the piece where he specifically addresses the SNP's figure.

However, I've made no attempt to defend the SNP's figure here. The IFS guy says it's wrong.

What he does say, though, is that Labour will make cuts of between "6 to 16 billion pounds". He actually says it twice. So what if I choose to phrase that as "up to 16 billion worth of cuts"? That's what he said!

You can't cite him as saying the SNP were wrong, then deny that he said that Labour's plans mean up to £16 billion worth of cuts. Either you accept everything as truth, or discount the lot. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to believe.

 

[TheScarf]

You can tell who votes Labour in this thread can't you?

[JS_FFC]

Couple of constituency polls have the Greens miles ahead in both Waveney and North Herefordshire. They could win 4+ seats imo. 

[GNU_Linux]

1 hour ago, JS_FFC said:

Couple of constituency polls have the Greens miles ahead in both Waveney and North Herefordshire. They could win 4+ seats imo. 

Bristol Central (newly created) is one the Greens probably have a good chance in. Co-leader Carla Denyer is the candidate which is some indication of it being a high priority seat. The areas profile is left & is the most pro-immigrant constituency in the UK in polling by the Telegraph.

Did notice TERF extraordinaire Posie Parker is running in the ward with her Party Of Women. Be a real real shame is she lost her deposit.

[Caro-Kann]

It all seems to be going the way of the 1993 Canadian Federal Election, that being the case we see Reform and the Conservatives eventually merging and a few electoral cycles later regaining power assuming that is societal breakdown hasn't occurred by the time they reach that stage.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

23 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

Mr Polling himself giving away a (probable) personal conviction.

Curtice aside, I often give David Jamieson a listen on the rare occasion his podcast isn’t behind a paywall.  A very intelligent man.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

22 hours ago, Michael W said:

There wasn't a natural home for their vote to defect to, in the way that Reform is to the Tories. 

I don't see Farage joining the Conservative Party, let alone leading it. There are enough people in the Tories who depise the man and will keep him away. However, the right of the party are in league with Farage in policy terms and enough of the vote is as well. 

Once the Tories have been skelped, the likes of Badenoch, Braverman and Truss will be agitating for it - 'unite the right, we'll never be in power again'. They will almost certainly become indistinguishable from Reform and so the move won't exactly require much of a policy shift. The scale of the losses obviously informs the likelihood that the Tory party can resist it, but if it's down to the aforementioned woman and the rest consisting mostly of the grey suits, I think it's a certainty. 

I don't doubt Labour will lose power again, I just don't think it will be to the Conservative party in its current iteration. 

Aye, the Tories need to do something drastic if they are to stop the drift.

It would have to be action and not just words, as their voters are mainly drifting because they don’t believe anything they say.

I mean, who does anymore?

[BFTD]

On 20/06/2024 at 17:02, Michael W said:

Coming round to the view that the Conservative Party might actually be finished. 

That's what we thought in 1997.

TBF, they should've been, but greed is a helluva drug.

[Jedi2]

18 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

The IFS guy said (and I quote)

"The Labour manifesto found some additional funding, actually, for the NHS & schools - not much - it was pretty thin gruel - but we estimate the cuts to the unprotected services now from the (Labour) manifesto are about 6 to 16 billion pounds based on the debt rules Labour signed up to, the tax rises it said it would do and the additional money it's put in on top of the plans it had  basically inherited from Jeremy Hunt from the March budget. So 6 to 16 billion pounds. So the SNP figure is above the top of that range but as it stands, Labour 's plans do imply cuts to unprotected services."

The only time period that I recall him referring to was "over the life of the parliament". He doesn't say anything about time periods in the piece where he specifically addresses the SNP's figure.

However, I've made no attempt to defend the SNP's figure here. The IFS guy says it's wrong.

What he does say, though, is that Labour will make cuts of between "6 to 16 billion pounds". He actually says it twice. So what if I choose to phrase that as "up to 16 billion worth of cuts"? That's what he said!

You can't cite him as saying the SNP were wrong, then deny that he said that Labour's plans mean up to £16 billion worth of cuts. Either you accept everything as truth, or discount the lot. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to believe.

 

Just like you 'pick and choose' not to listen to a (whole) 2 minutes more of the same interview where said IFS spokesperson says that the SNP's plans would mean a 'decade' of cuts to public services in Scotland (unless there were substantial tax hikes). 

So...Public Sector Cuts with the SNP if Independent for a decade...'okay', potential cuts to unprotected UK budgets with Labour..baaaaddd

[Michael W]

9 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Aye, the Tories need to do something drastic if they are to stop the drift.

 

 

It would have to be action and not just words, as their voters are mainly drifting because they don’t believe anything they say.

I mean, who does anymore?

I think they have just about conceivably pissed off every single voter group in the country, which is some achievement. 

There is obviously the chance that they pull through it, it's just that it feels like they are about to face an extinction event, or at least one where the party is on life support. The question is whether it ends up being overtaken and then the decision is made to have the plug pulled on it. 

3 minutes ago, BFTD said:

That's what we thought in 1997.

TBF, they should've been, but greed is a helluva drug.

No party of the right to take their place, let alone a party led by a man that their "base" admires and whose whims they submitted to on the EU. 

 

 

 

 

The Reform manifesto is a menu of red meat for Tories: significant personal tax cuts, business tax cuts, cut government departments budgets by 5%, reduce the amount of immigrants and scrap "net zero" subsidies. The Tories were heading towards these positions in opposition anyway, but they've a ready made set of policies already available to them. Reform have also made sure there's a nice tribute to Liz Truss in there, by playing fantasy accounting with their pledges.  

 

 

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Michael W said:

The Reform manifesto is a menu of red meat for Tories: significant personal tax cuts, business tax cuts, cut government departments budgets by 5%, reduce the amount of immigrants and scrap "net zero" subsidies. The Tories were heading towards these positions in opposition anyway, but they've a ready made set of policies already available to them. Reform have also made sure there's a nice tribute to Liz Truss in there, by playing fantasy accounting with their pledges.  

You've missed the big underlying policy that the right have been slowly working towards for a long time - withdrawal from the ECHR.

So many of their other policies are predicated upon making this dream happen for the rich and powerful.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

Just like you 'pick and choose' not to listen to a (whole) 2 minutes more of the same interview where said IFS spokesperson says that the SNP's plans would mean a 'decade' of cuts to public services in Scotland (unless there were substantial tax hikes). 

So...Public Sector Cuts with the SNP if Independent for a decade...'okay', potential cuts to unprotected UK budgets with Labour..baaaaddd

Shifting the goalposts by referring to a part of the interview that you hadn't really mentioned before isn't "picking & choosing". I responded to the actual point that you had made, and agreed with the IFS guy's assessment.

You however, appear to be incapable of admitting that Labour's plans will result in cuts of between £6 billion and £16 billion over the next 5 years. His projection of Labour cuts doesn't extend any further, so god knows what's in store if they get a second term.

I've already suggested a number of expenditure cuts that I would hope that the Scottish Government will make after Indy. From your response, I assume that (like Labour) you want to keep the monarchy, the House of Lords & the nukes? 

Incidentally, the unprotected budgets that Labour plan to cut include Local Government, which has already been cut to the bone. That's probably a few quid more than your example of foreign aid. Funny that you didn't mention it. 

[Highlandmagar]

2 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Just like you 'pick and choose' not to listen to a (whole) 2 minutes more of the same interview where said IFS spokesperson says that the SNP's plans would mean a 'decade' of cuts to public services in Scotland (unless there were substantial tax hikes). 

So...Public Sector Cuts with the SNP if Independent for a decade...'okay', potential cuts to unprotected UK budgets with Labour..baaaaddd

Labour..baaaaaddd? You mean New Conservatives!

[BFTD]

Sausage, egg, and chips for dinner tonight.

Sounds a bit bland but maybe a bit underrated as a low-key meal.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

Sausage, egg, and chips for dinner tonight.

Sounds a bit bland but maybe a bit underrated as a low-key meal.

Wow, exact same here ! Three pork links, what about you ?

[scottsdad]

Is this the fifties? Sausage egg and chips, ffs.

Rationing is over, guys.

[Fullerene]

3 hours ago, Michael W said:

I think they have just about conceivably pissed off every single voter group in the country, which is some achievement. 

There is obviously the chance that they pull through it, it's just that it feels like they are about to face an extinction event, or at least one where the party is on life support. The question is whether it ends up being overtaken and then the decision is made to have the plug pulled on it. 

No party of the right to take their place, let alone a party led by a man that their "base" admires and whose whims they submitted to on the EU. 

 

 

 

 

The Reform manifesto is a menu of red meat for Tories: significant personal tax cuts, business tax cuts, cut government departments budgets by 5%, reduce the amount of immigrants and scrap "net zero" subsidies. The Tories were heading towards these positions in opposition anyway, but they've a ready made set of policies already available to them. Reform have also made sure there's a nice tribute to Liz Truss in there, by playing fantasy accounting with their pledges.  

I think Liz Truss is a mirror to Jeremy Corbyn.  I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone.  I think Jeremy Corbyn seemed like a breath of fresh air to idealists who are attracted to the Labour Party and certainly more interesting than the other leadership contestants he was up against. 

Similarly I suspect Liz Truss was like a breath of fresh air to Tory activists compared to someone who might win them the next election.  They would probably choose similar again and lose the next election too.