48 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

I wouldn't agree with that - even real Labour voters don't like Starmer.

 

....and I certainly wouldn't take too much notice of polls????

Then it's not clear where this upsurge in Labour's support is coming from?

 

Polls get it wrong but not normally by the order of 25%!

44 minutes ago, RayC said:

Then it's not clear where this upsurge in Labour's support is coming from?

 

Polls get it wrong but not normally by the order of 25%!

As said, December 2024 is a long way off and Labour have done absolutely nothing of note.

 

One fear would be a switch to Lib Dems if the Tories don't get things sorted,.

10 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

As said, December 2024 is a long way off and Labour have done absolutely nothing of note.

 

One fear would be a switch to Lib Dems if the Tories don't get things sorted,.

What could Labor do given that they are very much a mnority party in Parliament?

1 hour ago, hotandsticky said:

As said, December 2024 is a long way off and Labour have done absolutely nothing of note.

 

One fear would be a switch to Lib Dems if the Tories don't get things sorted,.

There will come a time when Labour need to clarify their policies and put some flesh on the bones but, for the time being, they don't need to do or say anything. In fact, the less said the better; the Tories are making their case for them.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

There will come a time when Labour need to clarify their policies and put some flesh on the bones but, for the time being, they don't need to do or say anything. In fact, the less said the better; the Tories are making their case for them.

I agree, but as said above, the Tories have time on their side and if they start to turn things around then Labour need to show substance that they don't appear to have - and Starmer needs to be more than a tin soldier.

1 hour ago, hotandsticky said:

I agree, but as said above, the Tories have time on their side and if they start to turn things around then Labour need to show substance that they don't appear to have - and Starmer needs to be more than a tin soldier.

They don't have time on their side: they are despised. And with good reason. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and cuts to social security? How does that work in a modern social democracy unless the objective is a right wing coup?

That said, Starmer needs to turn up the heat a bit. Quite a bit, or else the ERG will reduce us to slaves of corporate wealth: What institutions does the British state own, now? Water? No. Gas? No. Electricity? No. The railways? No, apart from Network Rail. The NHS? Well a bit, but we are working on it. Air Traffic Control?  No, New Labour quietly flogged that off too.

Need I go on with privatised prisons?

 

If you don't have state institutions then you don't have a state. Or a country...

 

 

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

Good thing that the Tories so admantly opposed the War in Iraq...oh wait a minute. In fact, wasn't it the case the Labour was less supportive?

The Labour and Conservative parties were both committed to approving the invasion, but a quarter[6] of Labour MPs voted against the invasion. The Liberal Democrats, who had one in twelve of the MPs in parliament, also opposed the invasion.

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

There was also an amendment proposed that said that the case for war had not yet been established.

Conservates vote was 138 nay 15 aye. Labour was 245 to 138. Lib Dems 0 to 53 .

And despite the fact that the Conservatives were the most supportive of the invasion, the Iraq war convinced you to switch to them? Based on the vote, it seems the Lib Dems would have been the natural home for you and the conservatives the most unnatural. Something about this decision of yours strikes me as being a bit odd.

 

IMO doesn't matter which politicians supported that despicable war ( in Iraq ) based on ( IMO ) lies. Shame on the lot of them.

3 hours ago, baboon said:

They don't have time on their side: they are despised. And with good reason. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and cuts to social security? How does that work in a modern social democracy unless the objective is a right wing coup?

That said, Starmer needs to turn up the heat a bit. Quite a bit, or else the ERG will reduce us to slaves of corporate wealth: What institutions does the British state own, now? Water? No. Gas? No. Electricity? No. The railways? No, apart from Network Rail. The NHS? Well a bit, but we are working on it. Air Traffic Control?  No, New Labour quietly flogged that off too.

Need I go on with privatised prisons?

 

If you don't have state institutions then you don't have a state. Or a country...

 

 

IMO the most clever things politicians do is to fool the voters that "they" are in charge and that we have a country that doesn't belong to "special interests".

6 hours ago, baboon said:

They don't have time on their side: they are despised. And with good reason. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and cuts to social security? How does that work in a modern social democracy unless the objective is a right wing coup?

 

They are despised by a very angry left wing twitter mob, but then they always have been.   That mob, whilst incredibly loud, does not carry enough votes to win elections, it merely prevents people sharing their views publicly due to the vitriol they receive by having the "wrong view", giving the angry mob the false impression that everyone agrees with them.     

 

I suspect the majority of working taxpayers do not like the idea of working hard and paying taxes so that they can fund the work shy on benefits, even if they do not say it out loud or tell the polling companies how they feel, and just because people in your own echo chamber despise the Tories, does not mean that is how the silent majority (the people who actually carry the votes needed to win) feel about them.    

19 minutes ago, James105 said:

They are despised by a very angry left wing twitter mob, but then they always have been.   That mob, whilst incredibly loud, does not carry enough votes to win elections, it merely prevents people sharing their views publicly due to the vitriol they receive by having the "wrong view", giving the angry mob the false impression that everyone agrees with them.     

 

I suspect the majority of working taxpayers do not like the idea of working hard and paying taxes so that they can fund the work shy on benefits, even if they do not say it out loud or tell the polling companies how they feel, and just because people in your own echo chamber despise the Tories, does not mean that is how the silent majority (the people who actually carry the votes needed to win) feel about them.    

While the left wing twitter mob may be a thing - it is also true that the "work-shy benefit scrounger" is a right wing media invention, with isolated examples trotted out every time to justify wholesale cuts to benefits needed by many people.

There are laws in place to deal with fraudulent claims from people on benefits and a lot of time and (government-funded) effort goes into this - less effort into making sure that the large corporations pay their taxes (according to HMRC own figures) - and very little effort is spent on equalising the laws so that these tax loopholes cannot be exploited.

The silent majority as you call them despise both benefit scroungers and greedy corporations in equal measure and the party which can look as if it achieves a balance in this will prevail

3 minutes ago, SatEng said:

While the left wing twitter mob may be a thing - it is also true that the "work-shy benefit scrounger" is a right wing media invention, with isolated examples trotted out every time to justify wholesale cuts to benefits needed by many people.

There are laws in place to deal with fraudulent claims from people on benefits and a lot of time and (government-funded) effort goes into this - less effort into making sure that the large corporations pay their taxes (according to HMRC own figures) - and very little effort is spent on equalising the laws so that these tax loopholes cannot be exploited.

The silent majority as you call them despise both benefit scroungers and greedy corporations in equal measure and the party which can look as if it achieves a balance in this will prevail

Meanwhile in the real world people still get away with multiple benefit claims in different names, claim while working and claim disability when there are not really disabled. 

2 minutes ago, proton said:

Meanwhile in the real world people still get away with multiple benefit claims in different names, claim while working and claim disability when there are not really disabled. 

Meanwhile in the real world, the richer people with investment income and a good accountant (or a non-dom agreement) pay less tax than a factory worker (in % terms) - and just benefitted from another tax cut

So your point is?

48 minutes ago, James105 said:

They are despised by a very angry left wing twitter mob, but then they always have been.   That mob, whilst incredibly loud, does not carry enough votes to win elections, it merely prevents people sharing their views publicly due to the vitriol they receive by having the "wrong view", giving the angry mob the false impression that everyone agrees with them.     

 

I suspect the majority of working taxpayers do not like the idea of working hard and paying taxes so that they can fund the work shy on benefits, even if they do not say it out loud or tell the polling companies how they feel, and just because people in your own echo chamber despise the Tories, does not mean that is how the silent majority (the people who actually carry the votes needed to win) feel about them.    

Your ‘silent majority’ is a myth.

 

Elections are won by attracting a small number of swing voters in key ‘swing’ constituencies.

 

You can waffle on about ‘Work shy on benefits’ all you wish, when voters can’t afford to put regular meals in front of their kids, can’t afford to heat their homes and can’t afford their mortgage repayments, they are not listening to ‘scapegoating’.

 

They are focussed on the problems this Government has created for them.

 

 

Edited October 3, 20223 yr by Chomper Higgot

17 minutes ago, proton said:

Meanwhile in the real world people still get away with multiple benefit claims in different names, claim while working and claim disability when there are not really disabled. 

And when caught get thrown in prison.

On 10/2/2022 at 10:03 AM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Advocate posted some out of date incorrect info and I replied with the correct up date  info , so, not "whataboutary" at all 

Your information was not correct. It referred to monthly information for June 2022 which is not "correct up to date" for October 2022, whereas my information referred to annual trade balance.

 

 

On 9/26/2022 at 12:10 PM, placeholder said:

It's also fallen to below 40 against the Baht.

Well, likely to end up below the mid thirties, with the Euro. 

 

God gave the US cheap energy.

9 minutes ago, Boomer6969 said:

God gave the US cheap energy.

Actually, she shared it with the world. It's called solar power and wind power.

Smart U-turn.

46 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Smart U-turn.

Almost inevitable in the face of increasing opposition from all quarters including her own party.

 

From Nick Eardley on the BBC website:

 

"This is a colossal government U-turn.

 

Yesterday morning, the prime minister insisted she was pressing ahead with the controversial plan to scrap the 45p tax rate.

 

This morning - it’s dead."

Pound now back to 42.7 ...... slightly higher than it was a month back.

Maybe this thread should be closed now?

51 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Smart U-turn.

I'd have to disagree. While the original policy was controversial, allowing the MSM and the opposition to pressure you into changing government policy really plays into their hands.

 

Before, they were screaming for a U-Turn. Now they will deride her for making a U-Turn. She should have stuck to her guns IMO. We shouldn't be governed by hysterical media commentators like James O'Brien or other left wing extremists.

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'd have to disagree. While the original policy was controversial, allowing the MSM and the opposition to pressure you into changing government policy really plays into their hands.

 

Before, they were screaming for a U-Turn. Now they will deride her for making a U-Turn. She should have stuck to her guns IMO. We shouldn't be governed by hysterical media commentators like James O'Brien or other left wing extremists.

No, they will be derided for introducing a policy so horrible that the country wouldn't stand for it, thus causing the U turn.

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'd have to disagree. While the original policy was controversial, allowing the MSM and the opposition to pressure you into changing government policy really plays into their hands.

 

Before, they were screaming for a U-Turn. Now they will deride her for making a U-Turn. She should have stuck to her guns IMO. We shouldn't be governed by hysterical media commentators like James O'Brien or other left wing extremists.

That would just be stubborn.

 

It didn't look like a great move from day one - not just from the populist vote angle, economically it was unfunded and therefore poorly thought out 

 

Correcting an error and living with opposition p1ss taking is preferable to the economic and political consequences of a bad decision.

21 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Pound now back to 42.7 ...... slightly higher than it was a month back.

Maybe this thread should be closed now?

In the first instance you need to revisit the OP, while relevant to people living in Thailand on income from the UK the £/฿ is not the topic of discussion.

 

Secondly, the BoE has stepped in with £65Billion of quantitative easing in order to prop the pound up, the BoE have stated this is not a long term fix.

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

No, they will be derided for introducing a policy so horrible that the country wouldn't stand for it, thus causing the U turn.

It will be forgotten well within the 2 year survival deadline.

On 20190809 it went as low as 37.03.

 

The UK economy is still in the wilderness seeking rescue.

 

Is the UK economy now vulnerable to an attack on the GBP like the one by George Soros in 1992.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In the first instance you need to revisit the OP, while relevant to people living in Thailand on income from the UK the £/฿ is not the topic of discussion.

 

Secondly, the BoE has stepped in with £65Billion of quantitative easing in order to prop the pound up, the BoE have stated this is not a long term fix.

You do know they have just scrapped the tax cut for the rich?

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'd have to disagree. While the original policy was controversial, allowing the MSM and the opposition to pressure you into changing government policy really plays into their hands.

 

Before, they were screaming for a U-Turn. Now they will deride her for making a U-Turn. She should have stuck to her guns IMO. We shouldn't be governed by hysterical media commentators like James O'Brien or other left wing extremists.

She was forced into a U-Turn by members of her own party who were threatening to vote her budget down.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In the first instance you need to revisit the OP, while relevant to people living in Thailand on income from the UK the £/฿ is not the topic of discussion.

 

Secondly, the BoE has stepped in with £65Billion of quantitative easing in order to prop the pound up, the BoE have stated this is not a long term fix.

I thought they bought 65M of Gilts?

Which as far as I can see is just a government repaying a loan.

Edited October 3, 20223 yr by BritManToo

4 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

It will be forgotten well within the 2 year survival deadline.

It’ll be pushed up the back of people’s minds as the recession hits.

 

And of course next up, more Tory cuts to welfare and public services.