Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Paddington Bear]

It's not wrong but the education secretary should probably express it in a different way.

The absolute best thing we could do for most kids is make that clear from about year 9 and massively reduce their stress levels. Probably not as you say the way to do it on results day having hyped up exams for years

The obvious response to this from students & parents is;

"if it's irrelevant, then WTF do you put us thru it ?"

To which the only honest answer is that it's the best solution society has found for whittling down the number of people who have an aptitude for study & academic success, & thus who have the best chance of being successful in 3rd level academic education.

Of course once these students graduate 3rd level, they shortly discover that if you want to stay relevant, learning is continuous.

Have to say I strongly disagree with this, as we see by both the continued rise in grades, the rise in university entrants and the difficulty telling apart graduates of different institutions with different degrees. Not to mention the constant (true) claims of employers that grads lack basic work skills or the (true) observable fact of a general lack of intellectual curiosity.

And in return for this we get perma stressed teenagers who think they’ve ruined their lives, and miss out on what should be great moments in their lives

[fishfoodie]

The absolute best thing we could do for most kids is make that clear from about year 9 and massively reduce their stress levels. Probably not as you say the way to do it on results day having hyped up exams for years

The obvious response to this from students & parents is;

"if it's irrelevant, then WTF do you put us thru it ?"

To which the only honest answer is that it's the best solution society has found for whittling down the number of people who have an aptitude for study & academic success, & thus who have the best chance of being successful in 3rd level academic education.

Of course once these students graduate 3rd level, they shortly discover that if you want to stay relevant, learning is continuous.

Have to say I strongly disagree with this, as we see by both the continued rise in grades, the rise in university entrants and the difficulty telling apart graduates of different institutions with different degrees. Not to mention the constant (true) claims of employers that grads lack basic work skills or the (true) observable fact of a general lack of intellectual curiosity.

And in return for this we get perma stressed teenagers who think they’ve ruined their lives, and miss out on what should be great moments in their lives

Yeah, but that's because while national exams start out with the right intent, i.e. to provide a system that notionally is blind to where the candidate comes from, the skin colour, their accent, gender etc etc, over the decades I imagine the UK & Ireland have both ended up in the same place, where students study to pass the exam, & anything they learn is irrelevant, because the objective is to get sufficient grades to get whatever 3rd level place they want.

The intent of exams is good, but because they've become the be-all & end-all, (for many subjects, but not all*), the stress is intense.

The blame doesn't lie with the Politicians for me, but with society in general. Politicians need to fund the system, & demand that their are pathways for all levels of students to develop, but the pressure for students to go to University isn't coming from Politicans, but from their peers, & parents etc.

For starters I don't think the majority of 18 year olds are mature enough to go into University, without a lot of them washing out. I remember my first year in college, & about 10% of the intake didn't make it to Easter, & ~40% weren't back for 2nd year. It sounds like an appalling attrition rate, but speaking to staff, the administration relied on it, because otherwise they'd never have enough space for labs etc.


* I like that a number look for a candidate to have a portfolio of work, so that they can evaluate work that wasn't created under the stress of an exam, & can really get a feel for if they have an aptitude for the course.

[C69]

My daughter is livid that the grade boundaries have been massively lowered.
GCSEs next week.

[I like neeps]

Always good to see the "Labour" party sticking up for their base.

Let's see how this corresponds with the pledges

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

Ah.

[Line6 HXFX]

Article in the telegragh telling everyone under 50 to leave the country.

Yup, the paper of record for the tories thinks everyone should leave after 13 disasterous years of Tory government.


Bit of a shame they destroyed freedom of movement huh?


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/ ... -britain/


The historian Niall Ferguson once remarked that “if young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party”. If young British people knew what was good for them, they’d be on the next plane out of the country. Emigration is, after all, the time-honoured path to prosperity for those trapped in stagnating countries.

And the UK is not so much stagnating as it is fossilising. Fifteen years of anaemic growth mean that real wages are still below their 2008 peak – there are 30 year olds who have seen their entire working career go by without seeing meaningful growth in wages. The result is that countries we are used to thinking of as our peers are surging ahead.

Our GDP per capita, adjusted for actual purchasing power, is closer to Slovenia’s than it is to Denmark’s or Australia’s. American levels of prosperity are so far out of reach that we would need an economic Apollo mission to bridge the gap between us; the general manager of a Buc-ee’s petrol station in Texas is paid more than our Prime Minister.

With a tricky election looming, Rishi Sunak may come to regret giving up his US green card.


Economists think of migration as being driven by a combination of push and pull factors, things which drive you away from your home country and things which draw you to your destination. We’ve grown used to the stories of doctors trading soul-sapping shifts on NHS wards for higher pay and fewer hours in Australia, or finance professionals heading to Dubai.

The risk for Britain is that this trend now becomes widespread as a toxic combination of economic stagnation and surging growth elsewhere lure young people away.

It’s not as if the push factors are lacking. The housing market has passed beyond dysfunction and into catastrophe. Record numbers of adults still live with their parents, trapped by surging rents and unaffordable house prices. Those who do strike out can expect to spend well over 20 per cent of their incomes on housing costs, double the proportion that baby boomers spent when they were young. The average deposit on a family home would take that family around 19 years to save, compared to three years in the 1980s.

Young people wanting to start families are finding things previous generations took for granted to be effectively out of reach. It’s hard not to connect this dysfunction with the birth rate reaching record lows. Fertility intentions – the number of children women want to have – have been pretty much at replacement level in Britain even as the number of children they actually have has fallen.

To the extent that it is no longer possible for many to have the family lives they dream of in Britain, that’s a pretty convincing reason to leave.

This isn’t helped by the Government’s seeming preference to charge Scandinavian levels of taxes to deliver American levels of public services. The tax burden is creeping towards a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP, while the NHS, unreformed and possibly unreformable, seems to be falling apart. International comparisons score the health service highly for being free at the point of use and treating people equally. The problem is that it’s bad at keeping people from dying.


Meanwhile, other countries are becoming ever more attractive. We’re used to young people from Central and Eastern Europe coming here to work. Yet Poland is now growing so quickly that, if you project pre-pandemic growth rates forwards, it’s set to overtake us in output per person in ten years’ time.

In the meantime, it has a few other perks to offer young people, including exempting those under 26 from paying income tax. It’s a particularly appealing proposition if you can find a way to wrangle remote working at London wages while paying Warsaw prices.

The best reason to leave, though, is not that other countries are richer, or growing fast. It’s that the UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and if anything they look set to get worse.

Britain has been an old state for centuries, but it is increasingly an old country. People living longer is obviously a good thing. The problem is that, combined with decades of low birth rates, these improved life expectancies have flipped the population pyramid on its head. The proportion of the population aged over 65 has crept up from 15 per cent in 2000 to 19 per cent in 2022, and is set to reach nearly 30 per cent by 2070.


The result is that caring for Britain’s elderly is set to impose an ever greater burden on the working-age population. The record tax burden in 2027/28 could easily be passed in the 2030s, and the 2040s too. The spending pressures are there to do it; the cost of the state pension and old age benefits is set to rise to nearly 10 per cent of GDP by 2070, while health and social care budgets will take up nearly 18 per cent of output.

We don’t have to reach these heights for living in a stagnating economy with ratcheting taxes to be unappealing, particularly when cuts are likely to fall towards the end of this period on the spending today’s workers are meant to benefit from.

The German economist Albert Hirschman framed the choice of consumers facing deteriorating quality as one between voice and exit: either stay and try to fix things, or leave for a better alternative. For young people in Britain, “voice” seems to be failing. There is precious little political impetus to fix any of these issues.

Successive governments have found planning to be a political live wire, with the NHS run almost as its own private kingdom, issuing demands for tribute from ministers unable to effectively interfere in its running; no party seriously wants to shrink the state.

That leaves exit. Those who can go, should.

[SaintK]

Gillian Keegan, education secretary, when asked to reassure students disappointed with their results, said that no one would care about their results in ten years time.

That is kind of true to be fair.

Sort of
It would would probably have more relevance if she wasn't the 6th Secretary of State for Education in 4 years!!

[dpedin]

Article in the telegragh telling everyone under 50 to leave the country.

Yup, the paper of record for the tories thinks everyone should leave after 13 disasterous years of Tory government.


Bit of a shame they destroyed freedom of movement huh?


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/ ... -britain/


The historian Niall Ferguson once remarked that “if young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party”. If young British people knew what was good for them, they’d be on the next plane out of the country. Emigration is, after all, the time-honoured path to prosperity for those trapped in stagnating countries.

And the UK is not so much stagnating as it is fossilising. Fifteen years of anaemic growth mean that real wages are still below their 2008 peak – there are 30 year olds who have seen their entire working career go by without seeing meaningful growth in wages. The result is that countries we are used to thinking of as our peers are surging ahead.

Our GDP per capita, adjusted for actual purchasing power, is closer to Slovenia’s than it is to Denmark’s or Australia’s. American levels of prosperity are so far out of reach that we would need an economic Apollo mission to bridge the gap between us; the general manager of a Buc-ee’s petrol station in Texas is paid more than our Prime Minister.

With a tricky election looming, Rishi Sunak may come to regret giving up his US green card.


Economists think of migration as being driven by a combination of push and pull factors, things which drive you away from your home country and things which draw you to your destination. We’ve grown used to the stories of doctors trading soul-sapping shifts on NHS wards for higher pay and fewer hours in Australia, or finance professionals heading to Dubai.

The risk for Britain is that this trend now becomes widespread as a toxic combination of economic stagnation and surging growth elsewhere lure young people away.

It’s not as if the push factors are lacking. The housing market has passed beyond dysfunction and into catastrophe. Record numbers of adults still live with their parents, trapped by surging rents and unaffordable house prices. Those who do strike out can expect to spend well over 20 per cent of their incomes on housing costs, double the proportion that baby boomers spent when they were young. The average deposit on a family home would take that family around 19 years to save, compared to three years in the 1980s.

Young people wanting to start families are finding things previous generations took for granted to be effectively out of reach. It’s hard not to connect this dysfunction with the birth rate reaching record lows. Fertility intentions – the number of children women want to have – have been pretty much at replacement level in Britain even as the number of children they actually have has fallen.

To the extent that it is no longer possible for many to have the family lives they dream of in Britain, that’s a pretty convincing reason to leave.

This isn’t helped by the Government’s seeming preference to charge Scandinavian levels of taxes to deliver American levels of public services. The tax burden is creeping towards a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP, while the NHS, unreformed and possibly unreformable, seems to be falling apart. International comparisons score the health service highly for being free at the point of use and treating people equally. The problem is that it’s bad at keeping people from dying.


Meanwhile, other countries are becoming ever more attractive. We’re used to young people from Central and Eastern Europe coming here to work. Yet Poland is now growing so quickly that, if you project pre-pandemic growth rates forwards, it’s set to overtake us in output per person in ten years’ time.

In the meantime, it has a few other perks to offer young people, including exempting those under 26 from paying income tax. It’s a particularly appealing proposition if you can find a way to wrangle remote working at London wages while paying Warsaw prices.

The best reason to leave, though, is not that other countries are richer, or growing fast. It’s that the UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and if anything they look set to get worse.

Britain has been an old state for centuries, but it is increasingly an old country. People living longer is obviously a good thing. The problem is that, combined with decades of low birth rates, these improved life expectancies have flipped the population pyramid on its head. The proportion of the population aged over 65 has crept up from 15 per cent in 2000 to 19 per cent in 2022, and is set to reach nearly 30 per cent by 2070.


The result is that caring for Britain’s elderly is set to impose an ever greater burden on the working-age population. The record tax burden in 2027/28 could easily be passed in the 2030s, and the 2040s too. The spending pressures are there to do it; the cost of the state pension and old age benefits is set to rise to nearly 10 per cent of GDP by 2070, while health and social care budgets will take up nearly 18 per cent of output.

We don’t have to reach these heights for living in a stagnating economy with ratcheting taxes to be unappealing, particularly when cuts are likely to fall towards the end of this period on the spending today’s workers are meant to benefit from.

The German economist Albert Hirschman framed the choice of consumers facing deteriorating quality as one between voice and exit: either stay and try to fix things, or leave for a better alternative. For young people in Britain, “voice” seems to be failing. There is precious little political impetus to fix any of these issues.

Successive governments have found planning to be a political live wire, with the NHS run almost as its own private kingdom, issuing demands for tribute from ministers unable to effectively interfere in its running; no party seriously wants to shrink the state.

That leaves exit. Those who can go, should.

Pretty depressing but pretty accurate!

The Tories have single handedly destroyed the UK economy and are now trying to blame it on the old, the weak, the young, the unemployed, the migrants, the small boats, the non-white English, the socialists, the woke, the EU ... indeed anyone apart from themselves and their shitty economic and social policies. They have sold off the family silver cheap to their big business mates from US, Australia and the Middle East, taken wedges of cash from oligarchs and driven a wedge between us and our best mates in Europe all in order to line their own pockets with short term gains which they then invest in offshore accounts to avoid tax. They have destroyed the NHS, education, water and sewage industry, transport systems and power industry, etc - all run down on the basis of the need for a quick profit and at the expense of social good and public health. They dont listen to voters, the voice of the rich and the venture capitalists are far louder in the private gentlemen's clubs, Wimbledon and old school reunions. They have even employed a few so called working class stooges, the modern day Lord Haw Haws to try and pretend they are the party of the people - utter shite! How anyone with a brain votes for these posh speaking, privately educated but thick, xenophobic cowboys is beyond me. Put a Tory with a posh accent and a public school background in front of a little Englander and all they do is tug their forelock, listen to their racist shite and vote for the lord of the manor. FFS folk they are slowly but surely killing you, your community and your way of life. Go queue at a broken down ticket machine for an expensive ticket for a cancelled train to get to the seaside town which has 20% unemployment rate with every other shop shut down and go for a swim in the shit strewn sea and then try and get a GP appointment or see a doctor in A&E to treat your resulting e coli infection and tell me life is good under the Tories!

[David in Gwent]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

[Tichtheid]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

[David in Gwent]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.

Long answer short, the majority of UK people are not "liberal or progressive"

Take this place, the majority of posters are Left and the majority are very progressive - then take a step back and see how you speak about the working classes and how you view them.

The opinion here is that people are stupid, those people are not stupid enough to let people like you have ultimate power over them.

That's how I see the perception anyway.

[Biffer]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

They genuinely think the amount of tax they pay is more important than whether other people have access to hospital care, decent schools or anything else. That’s their absolute motivation, no more complicated than that.

[_Os_]

Why Gillian Keegan's comments are shit.

If someone can put massive effort into GCSEs, A-Levels to get their preferred uni place, etc etc ... and none of it actually matters. Then what does that say about the structure of the UK economy since Thatcher? It's really bizarre no one in the media says "you the Tories invented this economy, if educational achievement doesn't matter then it's your fault". The Tories even talked about Brexit enabling a "high skilled high wage economy", it didn't make sense how Brexit would enable it, but it showed they thought there was an issue. Huge amounts of jobs in the labour market which can be done by anyone and millions of graduates (4 million currently from memory) employed in jobs below their educational level, is a choice successive UK governments have taken. The choice has been a low regulation labour market where it's easy for employers to hire and fire, the choice hasn't been a highly regulated high skilled labour market because that would place extra costs on businesses and create the conditions for unionised labour (obviously the more skilled labour is the more bargaining power it has).

This is also linked to the immigration subject. If a large proportion of the jobs in the economy can be done by anyone, literally anyone can rock up and be doing the job as well as anyone after rudimentary training. Then obviously it's more likely there'll be large inward migration.

"Your A-Levels are irrelevant" sounds a lot like "immigration is out of control" to me. Well no shit, but why is this the case?

[David in Gwent]

An actual patriotic (not a pretend patriotic, people know the difference) Labour party would sweep to power.

I can almost sense some of the progressives on here twitch at the very sound of "patriotism" - there's a clue as to why you won't win the hearts and minds of the people.

Generally speaking, people also don't like Communism, despite what you might think.

[David in Gwent]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

They genuinely think the amount of tax they pay is more important than whether other people have access to hospital care, decent schools or anything else. That’s their absolute motivation, no more complicated than that.

It's far more complicated than that. For one tiny example, take the language you used in another thread, identifying a woman as a "cis woman" - they know that's what they will get with Labour - and they don't want that.

[Tichtheid]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.

Long answer short, the majority of UK people are not "liberal or progressive"

Take this place, the majority of posters are Left and the majority are very progressive - then take a step back and see how you speak about the working classes and how you view them.

The opinion here is that people are stupid, those people are not stupid enough to let people like you have ultimate power over them.

That's how I see the perception anyway.

People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

[David in Gwent]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.

Long answer short, the majority of UK people are not "liberal or progressive"

Take this place, the majority of posters are Left and the majority are very progressive - then take a step back and see how you speak about the working classes and how you view them.

The opinion here is that people are stupid, those people are not stupid enough to let people like you have ultimate power over them.

That's how I see the perception anyway.

People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

Are you a progressive liberal?

[Tichtheid]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

They genuinely think the amount of tax they pay is more important than whether other people have access to hospital care, decent schools or anything else. That’s their absolute motivation, no more complicated than that.

I think the tax burden is higher on individuals now that it has been for a while (I say that without googling) what is wrong is that the tax burden on corporations is low.

I stand to be corrected on either of those points

[Tichtheid]

Long answer short, the majority of UK people are not "liberal or progressive"

Take this place, the majority of posters are Left and the majority are very progressive - then take a step back and see how you speak about the working classes and how you view them.

The opinion here is that people are stupid, those people are not stupid enough to let people like you have ultimate power over them.

That's how I see the perception anyway.

People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

[Tichtheid]

progressive
[ pruh-gres-iv ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for: progressiveprogressives on Thesaurus.com
adjective
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:


liberal
adjective
1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.


Ok, I'll accept that

[David in Gwent]

People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

People in the estates also believe in equality.

[Tichtheid]

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

People in the estates also believe in equality.

I know, I'm one of them.

[_Os_]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

Tories are polling sub-30% and sometimes closer to 20% than 30%. the Tories and Reform combined aren't polling above a third of the vote.

Labour under Starmer are doing what is needed to poll well, which is say they are Tories and that they will change nothing. They are polling above 40% and usually closer to 50%.

MRP polling consistently has the Tories on about 100 seats. Which would be a historic wipe out, enough to wonder if the Tories were finished for good.

Labour with a huge majority is the most likely election outcome.

This isn't making a dent in the media, because much of the media is Tory owned, but also because what MRP polling shows is unthinkable and outside anyone's frame of reference. Analysts in the media just assume the Tories will get over 200 seats and an election would be close, not that the Tories will be struggling to get over 100 seats, despite what the best polling shows. Reasons are found for byelections and council election results being about unique factors too.

[David in Gwent]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

Tories are polling sub-30% and sometimes closer to 20% than 30%. the Tories and Reform combined aren't polling above a third of the vote.

Labour under Starmer are doing what is needed to poll well, which is say they are Tories and that they will change nothing. They are polling above 40% and usually closer to 50%.

MRP polling consistently has the Tories on about 100 seats. Which would be a historic wipe out, enough to wonder if the Tories were finished for good.

Labour with a huge majority is the most likely election outcome.

This isn't make a dent in the media, because much of the media is Tory owned, but also because what MRP polling shows is unthinkable and outside anyone's frame of reference. Analysts in the media just assume the Tories will get over 200 seats and an election would be close, not that the Tories will be struggling to get over 100 seats, despite what the best polling shows. Reasons are found for byelections and council election results being about unique factors too.

Polls, eh?

My take is that the Left will win the next election but will be in coalition and will not have a working majority.

[Biffer]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

They genuinely think the amount of tax they pay is more important than whether other people have access to hospital care, decent schools or anything else. That’s their absolute motivation, no more complicated than that.

I think the tax burden is higher on individuals now that it has been for a while (I say that without googling) what is wrong is that the tax burden on corporations is low.

I stand to be corrected on either of those points

Can discuss that all you like, but the tax motivation is the only thing some people judge their vote on.

[_Os_]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

Tories are polling sub-30% and sometimes closer to 20% than 30%. the Tories and Reform combined aren't polling above a third of the vote.

Labour under Starmer are doing what is needed to poll well, which is say they are Tories and that they will change nothing. They are polling above 40% and usually closer to 50%.

MRP polling consistently has the Tories on about 100 seats. Which would be a historic wipe out, enough to wonder if the Tories were finished for good.

Labour with a huge majority is the most likely election outcome.

This isn't make a dent in the media, because much of the media is Tory owned, but also because what MRP polling shows is unthinkable and outside anyone's frame of reference. Analysts in the media just assume the Tories will get over 200 seats and an election would be close, not that the Tories will be struggling to get over 100 seats, despite what the best polling shows. Reasons are found for byelections and council election results being about unique factors too.

Polls, eh?

My take is that the Left will win the next election but will be in coalition and will not have a working majority.

And council election results, and byelection results.

It'll be a massive Labour majority. Enough people in the constituencies which matter aren't going to vote Tory, and FPTP tilts things towards the two biggest parties. FPTP is supposed to produce majorities, landside victories are a feature not a bug.

For a coalition to be a likely outcome there has to be enough seats where one of Labour and the Tories aren't in contention. There's not many seats outside NI and Scotland where a party other than Labour or the Tories has any chance of winning, Lib Dems/Greens/Plaid Cymru/Reform have a combined max potential closer to 50 than 100. So people are going to get into the booth and pick who can beat the Tories and that'll almost always be Labour.

Quite funny that after what will be 15 calendar years of Tory rule, New Labour mk2 will be the destination.

[David in Gwent]

I suppose we'll see, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Lobby]

A poll of polls shows 28% of voters are intending on voting Tory at the next election.

Not for the first time I wonder what they would have to do to make these nincompoops vote otherwise.

Really, I just don't get it, if anyone can seriously explain why a vote for a Tory would be a good thing then I'm all ears, I'm not interested in a "Labour would be worse" deflection, that is not a serious answer.


edit, I won't try to rubbish any answer to this, I'm genuinely interested

They genuinely think the amount of tax they pay is more important than whether other people have access to hospital care, decent schools or anything else. That’s their absolute motivation, no more complicated than that.

I think the tax burden is higher on individuals now that it has been for a while (I say that without googling) what is wrong is that the tax burden on corporations is low.

I stand to be corrected on either of those points

According to the OBR the tax burden is higher than has usually been the case, but it is still lower than most advanced economies.

Historical tax burden (including comparisons to EU and G7)



Current tax burden comparison

[_Os_]

I suppose we'll see, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Not much money in it now. Labour majority is the favourite @ 1.44, second favourite is Labour minority @ 4.55.

[Sandstorm]

The issue is salaries haven't kept up with inflation - or even changed in 25 years!

1998 - I was in my 20s, earning £24k and paying £2 a pint
2023 - We have graduates at our business in their 20s still earning £24k and paying £6 a pint

This cannot stand!!

[Dinsdale Piranha]

The issue is salaries haven't kept up with inflation - or even changed in 25 years!

1998 - I was in my 20s, earning £24k and paying £2 a pint
2023 - We have graduates at our business in their 20s still earning £24k and paying £6 a pint

This cannot stand!!

Depends on the industry and location.

IIRC I started in IT on 7K a year in 1992. 1998 with a few years experience I was on 35K.

My niece started in IT in 2019 on 40K a year.

[edit]this is London wages[/edit]

The cost of a pint is a valid issue for some of us though

[David in Gwent]

I suppose we'll see, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Not much money in it now. Labour majority is the favourite @ 1.44, second favourite is Labour minority @ 4.55.

Might take a trade position on that 4.55 - only because the Tories will have to resort to desperate promises which may see it shorten somewhat.

[JM2K6]

Always good to see the "Labour" party sticking up for their base.

Let's see how this corresponds with the pledges

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

Ah.

Bit of a disingenuous piece by the FT there. Unite gave it the thumbs down! Yes, they did. A bunch of others trade unions are on board with it. And you can tell it's not actually an abandoning of the pledge by how much the Tories fucking hate it.

Here's what they're actually saying they'll do (some policy! at last!) - https://labour.org.uk/page/a-new-deal-f ... ng-people/

and the full PDF is well worth reading. It's quite comprehensive and puts them in near complete opposition to the Tories. And as far as I can see, every single part of that quoted pledge is being adhered to.

Working with trade unions? Yup. Unite might dislike the changes but most of the trade unions are on board with it, and the document talks extensively about easing the restrictions on trade unions, encouraging their membership, and making it easier to form and join them in the first place.

Standing up for working people? Sure, that's what this is about.

Tackling insecure work? Yup, extensive stuff in there about giving much-needed protections to those who aren't full time employees, including the single status of "worker" for everyone except the genuinely self-employed, to end the abuse of things like zero hours contracts and everything else that employers pull to avoid giving employees proper rights. Lots more about rights and protections including for self employed people.

Low pay? Yup, Fair Pay Agreements, better social security systems, better SSP, increase in minimum wage, etc.

Repeal the Trade Union Act? Yup, explicitly mentioned

Oppose Tory attacks? Plenty of stuff about making it easier to take industrial action and removing some of the obstacles the Tories have implemented, plus a ton of extra things about workers rights.


I'm sure it's possible to pick holes in this but it's a great start and looks to be completely in line with the pledges. I know you're super keen to portray Labour under Starmer as "The Tories but more popular" - and they've certainly taken positions recently that I completely disagree with - but it would appear that the criticisms here are wildly wrong.

[I like neeps]

Always good to see the "Labour" party sticking up for their base.

Let's see how this corresponds with the pledges

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

Ah.

Bit of a disingenuous piece by the FT there. Unite gave it the thumbs down! Yes, they did. A bunch of others trade unions are on board with it. And you can tell it's not actually an abandoning of the pledge by how much the Tories fucking hate it.

Here's what they're actually saying they'll do (some policy! at last!) - https://labour.org.uk/page/a-new-deal-f ... ng-people/

and the full PDF is well worth reading. It's quite comprehensive and puts them in near complete opposition to the Tories. And as far as I can see, every single part of that quoted pledge is being adhered to.

Working with trade unions? Yup. Unite might dislike the changes but most of the trade unions are on board with it, and the document talks extensively about easing the restrictions on trade unions, encouraging their membership, and making it easier to form and join them in the first place.

Standing up for working people? Sure, that's what this is about.

Tackling insecure work? Yup, extensive stuff in there about giving much-needed protections to those who aren't full time employees, including the single status of "worker" for everyone except the genuinely self-employed, to end the abuse of things like zero hours contracts and everything else that employers pull to avoid giving employees proper rights. Lots more about rights and protections including for self employed people.

Low pay? Yup, Fair Pay Agreements, better social security systems, better SSP, increase in minimum wage, etc.

Repeal the Trade Union Act? Yup, explicitly mentioned

Oppose Tory attacks? Plenty of stuff about making it easier to take industrial action and removing some of the obstacles the Tories have implemented, plus a ton of extra things about workers rights.


I'm sure it's possible to pick holes in this but it's a great start and looks to be completely in line with the pledges. I know you're super keen to portray Labour under Starmer as "The Tories but more popular" - and they've certainly taken positions recently that I completely disagree with - but it would appear that the criticisms here are wildly wrong.

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

[Insane_Homer]

Starmer is a Tory in everything but name.
Nothing he's said or done since ousting the hermit millionaire suggests otherwise.

[JM2K6]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

[I like neeps]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

The FT, of course, are favourites of Momentum and obviously the paper the group will go to with anonymous complaints. We can say what we want of the right wing press but the FT aren't in the business of making stuff up. If anything, it would make sense for a labour insider to leak this to them as the FT is the paper of big business who this alleged change is aimed at wooing.

Yes we will see as the FT says it'll be announced there's a change before the conference next month. Let's circle back then.

[dpedin]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

[JM2K6]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

The FT, of course, are favourites of Momentum and obviously the paper the group will go to with anonymous complaints. We can say what we want of the right wing press but the FT aren't in the business of making stuff up. If anything, it would make sense for a labour insider to leak this to them as the FT is the paper of big business who this alleged change is aimed at wooing.

Yes we will see as the FT says it'll be announced there's a change before the conference next month. Let's circle back then.

The FT are absolutely going to be in dialogue with disaffected people on the left if it's to be benefit of the Tories, don't be naive.

If Starmer's group was going to leak this then you'd expect some sort of quotes from that perspective in the article, no? As it is, the only non Tories in there are unnamed momentum.

As for the meat of the complaints - genuinely if Labour did do exactly what the quoted changes are, is that the end of the world? It's minor implementation shit taken in the context of the full list of policies, and still in line with the pledges.

I understand the total lack of faith but you're going to have to explain what exactly the problem actually is here beyond some muchr raking.

[Biffer]

I wouldn't be so sure. The FT is all about market stability and growth. Given the complete fucking chaos the tories have been inflicting they'd be happy with competence. They turned against Major after black Wednesday etc.

And it's not exactly the right wing media line to make About look less left wing

[David in Gwent]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

Slightly disingenuous, the economy is always going to be fucked when you've pissed billions upon billions up the wall in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.