Stop voting for fucking Tories

[tc27]

Yeah can definitely feel the dead hand of commercial landlords here.

Absolutely no sympathy.

[_Os_]

Precisely. The Tories aren't getting the flak, Boris is. Sunak the snake will get the job and the amnesiac electorate will treat them like a new party.

That's the dominant view. But they forget how cunning Johnson is at manipulating the Tory party, it could be wishful thinking.

Sunak could've been put where he is to fail. Once he has failed, he can be moved to the side like Raab and blamed. Sunak will shortly be in crisis, with all sorts of demands he make the money machine go bbbuuurrr. It's not a good look when you're one of the richest people on the planet and you refuse to make the money machine go bbbuuurrr. As soon as the media coverage turns awful, Johnson will also demand the money machine be fired up. It's an old ANC trick to put a racial minority in as finance minister, knowing they'll block spending, knowing that'll mean they become vilified (and not the ANC), and knowing that the longer they're the only sane voice in the room and the longer they hold out the more vilified they become. If Sunak caves (which he probably will), he'll be seen as weak and no different to Johnson, then he'll get the Raab treatment.

Johnson has been clever (in building his base, not at running anything), in who he has positioned around him. They're all broken people: incompetent, supported Remain, then supported Johnson's Brexit. Someone like Liz Truss is all three, without Johnson her career starts a terminal nosedive. Most of them are like her. They'll all fight for Johnson even after he's taken on so much water he's on the seabed. The plan is to have an incompetent government, because if there's no one of any standing and competence none of them can challenge Johnson.

Sunak also maybe doesn't appeal to voters still onboard with the Tory project. He's the sort of guy that would appeal to people heading for the exit in places like Chesham and Amersham (they're not rushing to the escape hatch because of years old planning issues). It was evident already in 2019 that the Tories were losing some of their core vote (middle class people in the south of England, the "liberal metropolitan elite" who are now the enemy), the Libdems had the biggest percentage increase in their vote that election, what stopped them winning more and taking Tory seats (almost all Libdem marginals are Tory facing) was Corbyn. Now Starmer is Labour leader in their minds there's no imminent communist takeover if Labour win, so they can vote against the Tories and for the Libdems because even if it puts Labour into power they won't care. Basically these people have worked out they're the useful idiots of the revolution. That's what Hannan in his Telegraph article talking about a "free market split from the Tories" post his own party's conference was really about, it's someone working out they've facilitated the opposite of what they intended and they're on their own.

Besides the tribalists that just vote for their party no matter what, the Tories still have two other groups. Old people that have had huge amounts of patronage shoveled at them, maybe so much that they would just vote for a Tory no matter what (but they're probably more onboard with "entertaining character" Johnson and not Sunak). The main group Johnson has tried to win is the red wall (code for north of England Brexit supporters that have already given up on Labour, who Labour cannot win anyway), I'm not sure to what extent this idea Tories seem to have of basically lumpen northern Brexiters exists (a number of northern cities voted Remain), but maybe it exists in place like Hartlepool which had a bizarre council before the Tories won a by-election there. Are people like Hartlepool man that actually elected a For Britain councillor and vote for other parties to the right of the Tories, going to vote for Sunak? Probably not.

Properly mental stuff has come out of the Tory party conference, they reportedly intend to steal socialism in the same way Thatcher stole liberalism (nationalist madness, these aren't interchangeable tools with the same utility). They know they've lost a lot of their own supporters, who actually work/pay taxes/run businesses. So their solution is going to be shovel patronage at whatever demographic they think they can win, and Sunak looks to have been placed to be the person stopping that happening. Before an election they'll also cut taxes to try and stop the south of England "liberal metropolitan elites" rushing for the escape pods. You'll then impossibly have tax cuts and who knows what goodies.

That's the big question I guess, can Johnson shovel enough patronage at the old and the lumpen so that they can replace the voters he loses. If he can and maintains power, then he's built the Tory party around himself and can continue rebuilding it in that direction. He then becomes hard for the Tories to dislodge without the Tory party also losing power, because their entire electoral platform ends up being Johnson (and Brexit).

I advise disinvestment into whatever non-UK vehicle you can get (US dollars, stocks, whatever).

[Paddington Bear]

For the record as someone originally from Chesham & Amersham - planning is 100% why they lost that by-election and the people I talk to have no issues pointing this out. Of course there's other stuff as well but people there would quite like no homes to ever be built again and combine that with being fucked off with HS2.

[sturginho]

The Daily Mail is actually launching a campaign to get every back to doing a pointless daily commute by linking homeworking to people getting left behind in Kabul.

It's absolutely pathetic and frankly not the governments or media's business to dictate..they can fuck right off.

We don't have a command and control economy, unless you work in an office that is

[Slick]

For the record as someone originally from Chesham & Amersham - planning is 100% why they lost that by-election and the people I talk to have no issues pointing this out. Of course there's other stuff as well but people there would quite like no homes to ever be built again and combine that with being fucked off with HS2.

If I was still living there I'd be joining any protest vote against HS2.

[Paddington Bear]

For the record as someone originally from Chesham & Amersham - planning is 100% why they lost that by-election and the people I talk to have no issues pointing this out. Of course there's other stuff as well but people there would quite like no homes to ever be built again and combine that with being fucked off with HS2.

If I was still living there I'd be joining any protest vote against HS2.

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

[Slick]

For the record as someone originally from Chesham & Amersham - planning is 100% why they lost that by-election and the people I talk to have no issues pointing this out. Of course there's other stuff as well but people there would quite like no homes to ever be built again and combine that with being fucked off with HS2.

If I was still living there I'd be joining any protest vote against HS2.

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

[SaintK]

If I was still living there I'd be joining any protest vote against HS2.

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

Particularly as the Government are about to cancel two of the extensions to the North and North East due to rising costs. So much for the Northern Powerhouse and a joined up rail network!!!

[robmatic]

If I was still living there I'd be joining any protest vote against HS2.

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

You're probably right about that, which makes it weird that they have been trying to sell the main benefit as being reduced journey times. It's less sexy but the main benefit would be the increased capacity due to the extra route in a network which currently can't handle the demand at peak times.

Personally I'd rather have seen some improvements to other parts of the rail network as a priority (I have to use the trans Pennine route whenever I come back to the UK and it's flipping brutal) but realistically, it has to be London first to get the go ahead from any flavour of government.

[Paddington Bear]

Yeah capacity is the key thing and unlocks huge potential on existing lines. Fully agree on trans-pennine routes as well, utterly disgraceful level of service

[Calculon]

Having lived in, and planning to return to, a country with an extensive high speed rail network, all I can say it's absolutely great.

[Slick]

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

You're probably right about that, which makes it weird that they have been trying to sell the main benefit as being reduced journey times. It's less sexy but the main benefit would be the increased capacity due to the extra route in a network which currently can't handle the demand at peak times.

Personally I'd rather have seen some improvements to other parts of the rail network as a priority (I have to use the trans Pennine route whenever I come back to the UK and it's flipping brutal) but realistically, it has to be London first to get the go ahead from any flavour of government.

That's true, but the cynic in me can't see it being priced at the right level, or convenient enough, to get people out of their cars. I can't help feeling that there was a great opportunity in there, particularly with the cash that is being spent on it, to really make a difference to train travel and I don't think this is it.

[I like neeps]

Dishy Rishi not a fan of Kwarteng it would seem. In any case Johnson has overuled him and the treasury will help.

As an aside, can a 5'6 man really be dishy?

[Random1]

I'm a supporter of the project as I strongly believe it's crucial to improving northern infrastructure and the productivity boost that gives all of us. It is however a complete pain in the arse as it's being built (the Chilterns tunnel starts near me) and of course the benefits are tangential at best to this area.
I remain hopeful that with a bit of thought and effort things like the Colne/Wendover viaducts will in time be regarded as modern Ribbleheads/Glenfinnans but we shall see. Right now it all looks horrendous.

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

You're probably right about that, which makes it weird that they have been trying to sell the main benefit as being reduced journey times. It's less sexy but the main benefit would be the increased capacity due to the extra route in a network which currently can't handle the demand at peak times.

Personally I'd rather have seen some improvements to other parts of the rail network as a priority (I have to use the trans Pennine route whenever I come back to the UK and it's flipping brutal) but realistically, it has to be London first to get the go ahead from any flavour of government.

The time savings still make a compelling case for me. Even if it’s 10 mins down there from brum, that makes 20 minutes a day saved per person.

That’s almost 68 hours a year based on someone travelling each day for 40 weeks a year.

Multiply that by the number of people using it, and the time savings are huge.

[I like neeps]

This is an interesting thought.

[Paddington Bear]

I dunno. Northern infrastructure certainly needs improving but I'm still not sure how shaving a few minutes off the journey time is going to have much of an impact. It seems even less important now that we all use Zoom etc.

You're probably right about that, which makes it weird that they have been trying to sell the main benefit as being reduced journey times. It's less sexy but the main benefit would be the increased capacity due to the extra route in a network which currently can't handle the demand at peak times.

Personally I'd rather have seen some improvements to other parts of the rail network as a priority (I have to use the trans Pennine route whenever I come back to the UK and it's flipping brutal) but realistically, it has to be London first to get the go ahead from any flavour of government.

The time savings still make a compelling case for me. Even if it’s 10 mins down there from brum, that makes 20 minutes a day saved per person.

That’s almost 68 hours a year based on someone travelling each day for 40 weeks a year.

Multiply that by the number of people using it, and the time savings are huge.

Time savings are incremental - the further from London you are the more they become. The project has been appallingly sold - the idea that it's a railway to Birmingham rather than the railway to Birmingham being the crucial first step is so firmly embedded. Of course the Treasury will probably cancel the rest so that might end up being it.

[Tichtheid]

Rishi Sunak to save billions by counting IMF cash as aid for poor

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-for-poor

[Tichtheid]

A slice of Pie.

I swear the Left are happy to just keep attacking Starmer instead of trying to oust the Tories. There were many accusations from the Left that the New Labour faction had undermined Corbyn from day one.

It's all so depressing, really.

[robmatic]

A slice of Pie.

I swear the Left are happy to just keep attacking Starmer instead of trying to oust the Tories. There were many accusations from the Left that the New Labour faction had undermined Corbyn from day one.

It's all so depressing, really.

It's easy to be cynical about the Tories' levelling up chat - I'm not sure that anything will actually come of it, policy-wise - but they are at least talking about economic inequality as an issue. I looked at the Labour website the other day and it's basically anodyne middle-class focused waffle. On top of all the culture war open goals, it's no wonder the Tories are in such a strong electoral position.

[Slick]

Dishy Rishi not a fan of Kwarteng it would seem. In any case Johnson has overuled him and the treasury will help.

As an aside, can a 5'6 man really be dishy?

This is going to end up a bloodbath. Boris' divide and rule will only last so long before it implodes, then we really are up shit creek as a country.

I have to say I'm usually pretty relaxed when folk are predicting doom and gloom, the country usually just rolls on much as before, but I'm getting worried about the next few years now.

[Paddington Bear]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

[Slick]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

[Paddington Bear]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

See also what e.g. AZ achieved with high levels of funding and clear government direction. Should put to bed a lot of lazy criticisms of British state capacity, business and science.

[sturginho]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

Who is going to ask these questions?

[Slick]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

Who is going to ask these questions?

me and Paddington

[Tichtheid]

A slice of Pie.

I swear the Left are happy to just keep attacking Starmer instead of trying to oust the Tories. There were many accusations from the Left that the New Labour faction had undermined Corbyn from day one.

It's all so depressing, really.

It's easy to be cynical about the Tories' levelling up chat - I'm not sure that anything will actually come of it, policy-wise - but they are at least talking about economic inequality as an issue. I looked at the Labour website the other day and it's basically anodyne middle-class focused waffle. On top of all the culture war open goals, it's no wonder the Tories are in such a strong electoral position.

It's easy to be cynical about it because they do things like cut £20/week from Universal Credit, some 40% of which goes to employed people on wages so low that they have to claim top ups from this system.

The Labour conference passed motions to increase minimum wage to £15, the minimum wage was introduced by Blair's Labour and was opposed by the Tories at the time.
The conference also passed motions to end the gig economy and zero hours contracts and install employment rights from day one. It remains to be seen if these make it into policy promises in the next manifesto, but they are "talking about economic inequality" too.

The BBC described the Tory conference as "light on policy", I think they are being generous.

The Tories have had ten and a half years to "level up", I see no real signs of it, indeed if you go through the achievements of the Labour governments from '97 - 2010, Sure Start, hospital building programme, school building, increased number of police, doctors and nurses, teachers and support staff, writing off debt for poorest countries, same sex equality and marriage, devolution, paternity leave, winter fuel payments etc etc, these were opposed at the time and/or stopped by the Tories since they've been in government

[Paddington Bear]

A £15 minimum wage is completely nuts though - the average wage across the country is something like £12. They've just taken the American campaign for $15 and transferred it straight across without even bothering to think about exchange rates or GDP or anything complicated like that.

That's all large parts of Labour have these days - they're a branch office of the left of the Democrats.

[I like neeps]

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

See also what e.g. AZ achieved with high levels of funding and clear government direction. Should put to bed a lot of lazy criticisms of British state capacity, business and science.

Boris Johnson said in his speech the AZ vaccine was a result of capitalism which is true but sought to minimise the government's role in its funding quite deliberately.

The problem with growth is it's fairly fungible. GDP is a totally nonsensical statistic and should absolutely not be used for measuring the economic growth of a country (as it's own creator says)! However if you say growth is rising look at GDP but people's lives e.g. place they live, local services, kids education etc gets worse people will not care about growth.

Likewise you have a huge number of people who cannot afford what they grew up believing in or previous generations had: house by 30, kids by 35 etc. So why would they care about growth?

You need growth to result in tangible and obvious improvements. I don't believe the last 10 years in the UK has had that. The growth has benefited the offshore private equity types and a bit homeowners (which is a large class of people admittedly) but that's not conducive to a healthy society.

[Tichtheid]

There's no way Labour will campaign on £15 minimum wage, the latest figures have the median wage in the UK at £13.65.

Starmer has stated £10 for the minimum wage, with all the caveats for age and apprenticeships and the like presumably still there.

The UK has had the worst decade of wage growth since the 19th century, with current wages around the same as in 2008, after inflation is taken into account.

[Paddington Bear]

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

See also what e.g. AZ achieved with high levels of funding and clear government direction. Should put to bed a lot of lazy criticisms of British state capacity, business and science.

Boris Johnson said in his speech the AZ vaccine was a result of capitalism which is true but sought to minimise the government's role in its funding quite deliberately.

The problem with growth is it's fairly fungible. GDP is a totally nonsensical statistic and should absolutely not be used for measuring the economic growth of a country (as it's own creator says)! However if you say growth is rising look at GDP but people's lives e.g. place they live, local services, kids education etc gets worse people will not care about growth.

Likewise you have a huge number of people who cannot afford what they grew up believing in or previous generations had: house by 30, kids by 35 etc. So why would they care about growth?

You need growth to result in tangible and obvious improvements. I don't believe the last 10 years in the UK has had that. The growth has benefited the offshore private equity types and a bit homeowners (which is a large class of people admittedly) but that's not conducive to a healthy society.

I'll take onboard your GDP comments but there's a lack of other great measures so let's start there:


2% a year for a decade basically whilst printing shitloads of money - piss poor. Basically standing still.
Let's look at it another way:

So comparatively your average Brit is still poorer than they were before the GFC. Covid notwithstanding.
Meanwhile, of course:



We can go round the houses on measures but this gives an idea. Britain has experienced the best part of 15 years of stagnation and looks set for 15 more. Pressures on public services are worse, the population is ageing, there's the shock of covid and the debts to service from it. Etc etc.

You're right about standards of living being as much linked to public services/lived environment etc as it is to a GDP stat, but let's take as read (I think we both agree) that your average Brit is not wealthier than they were 10-15 years ago and public services were pre-covid much the same on balance. All the while of course others have grown and the costs of keeping up rise.

This is why it matters - staying still as we have is going backwards. We cannot fund our public services as we'd like or invest as certainly I'd like with the stagnant economy we have. Over the long term the only outcome is decline.

Likewise you have a huge number of people who cannot afford what they grew up believing in or previous generations had: house by 30, kids by 35 etc. So why would they care about growth?

You have to see that there is a direct correlation. People without decent housing do not, statistically:
1) Have families
2) Start businesses
3) Have meaningful savings
4) Spend a large proportion of their disposable income
5) Invest

Which all equals shit growth. We cannot have proper economic growth whilst a substantial chunk of our working population is crowded out of decent housing. A huge element of our productive economy is spent sending money directly to landlords. This is the immediate cost - the more serious costs come down the line when Britain produces fewer entrepreneurs, people have smaller families if at all and have lower levels of savings, investments and other assets.
Making housing accessible and affordable in areas where people want to live and are economically vibrant is crucial to unlocking everything else. No houses = no hope = further stagnation. It's simple as this.

With all this doom and gloom I should finish on a brighter note. As mentioned before AZ and the vaccine rollout showed off what Britain is capable of - an efficient private sector firm combined with world leading researchers and was provided with funding and clear direction from the government to reach a great result. We have some great firms, we have dynamic people across the economy, this is a great place to do business and we can find the money to invest if we want to. It just takes political will and a need to tell pensioners, for once, no.

Sorry for the length, got carried away.

[sturginho]

COVID has certainly changed things. Questions will be asked how we can afford to borrow billions for COVID but in better times don't see that as an option for developing the economy.

Who is going to ask these questions?

me and Paddington

As lovely as that is, it's not really going to change anything until the opposition, press and voters start asking the same questions

[Tichtheid]

Boris Johnson said in his speech the AZ vaccine was a result of capitalism which is true but sought to minimise the government's role in its funding quite deliberately.

Didn't the private equity seed money account for about 5% of the funding used to develop the vaccine?

The rest came from public money.


btw, I saw that Dolly Parton had donated $1M for the development of the Moderna vaccine, I always thought Dolly would save us all.

When she got her inoculation some wag said that she was getting a taste of her own medicine.

[fishfoodie]

Who is going to ask these questions?

me and Paddington

As lovely as that is, it's not really going to change anything until the opposition, press and voters start asking the same questions

And maybe ditch FPTP, so that you get a Government that reflects the policies of the majority of the population; & not just 40% !

[Slick]

Who is going to ask these questions?

me and Paddington

As lovely as that is, it's not really going to change anything until the opposition, press and voters start asking the same questions

I think those people will start asking those questions now. To the average punter (and I certainly count myself in that), things like austerity seemed the only sensible option when there didn't look to be a lot of cash around, at least that's what we were told. But we can all see now that there is an alternative and that we were being fed bullshit. I'm not saying we should just always look to spend, spend, spend, but people will, hopefully, now start asking what the other options are and the government will have to come up with decent answers.

[_Os_]

For the record as someone originally from Chesham & Amersham - planning is 100% why they lost that by-election and the people I talk to have no issues pointing this out. Of course there's other stuff as well but people there would quite like no homes to ever be built again and combine that with being fucked off with HS2.

My main data point was Labour, their performance was terrible: 7k votes in 2019/11k votes in 2017 (and second place)/7k votes in 2015/3k votes in 2010/7k votes in 2005, but in the by-election only 622 votes and losing their deposit. On a bad day there's 3k Labour voters and probably closer to 7k, Labour's Brexit position has been the most ambiguous of the three biggest parties (including under Starmer, he/Labour want a better deal but don't describe what that means), Libdems and the Tories have been much more clearer. Labour lost everything there, the two parties with the clearer Brexit position ended up one and two, The Libdem percentage was almost the same as the Remain vote share there (55%). The Libdems getting about the same amount of votes the Libdems and Labour usually get there combined (about 20k), the Tories lost a bit over half of their normal total vote (roughly down to 14k from 32k). So my read was roughly that an informal Remain collation was put together between the Libdems and Labour (among the Labour supporters in the south of England, Leave isn't well supported), Labour putting up a token effort and letting the Libdems have a run at the seat, with some Tories switching (who probably also backed Remain, can't see someone that didn't voting Libdem) but more Tory voters staying at home.

There's a lot of guessing in all that, and you being from there I have to weigh that up with it. Whatever the case the Libdems basically absorbed the entire Labour vote, unlikely to be repeated at a GE, so Libdems retaining the seat depends on how many Tories they really did win and how many Tories won't vote next time.

Only Labour are a truly UK party, as in they're formed by the UK itself (particularly the industrial revolution/organised workers), the Libdems and Tories are really English parties the ideas behind both can be traced back to the opposing sides in the civil war. As the UK has fragmented Labour has been the most damaged of the big three parties, they relied on the Celts and the industrial north of England to win power, they're not winning the Celts back and the industrial north is more or less a rust belt without organised workers. The weaker the UK becomes the weaker Labour becomes too, it doesn't seem to matter what Labour does. I cannot see any circumstances that Labour wins a lot of seats from the Tories in the south of England, they'll be doing well just to hold the seats they have UK wide.

So the only way the Tories are going to lose, is if some Tory voters in the south of England switch to the Libdems and there's a coalition government (basically "chaos under Ed Miliband and the SNP"). It needs a 2010 result, but a different coalition outcome. That's why Chesham & Amersham and what exactly happened there matters. My guess is any lost Tory voters in the south can be replaced by new Tory voters in the north, so it's this Tory government into the 2030s.

Our central problem across politics is that no one in any position of authority in either party believes in economic growth as a core principle of effective government. The vast, vast majority of Britain's issues are dramatically reduced if we can have a few years of good growth. Instead we continue Treasury penny pinching that's left huge swathes of the country poor by any measure in a developed nation. Will only get worse.

Growth should always be one of the top order priorities, the longer it doesn't feature anywhere the more likely it'll eventually be the all consuming total focus and everything in the way will be knocked down. I particularly have zero faith in the Tories really targeting growth, because as soon as a list of necessary changes is produced it's all things they have a vested interest in opposing. They're just never going to seriously devolve power/spending away from the centre, and they're never going to be able to efficiently plan for the periphery from the centre.

The Treasury's Brexit impact report modeled the impact on growth for different scenarios, Norway would've been 1%-2% less GDP over 10 years (a small impact spread over that time, given the UK's average growth before the modelling was done), the closest to the scenario the UK has spent 2021 travelling down is 6%-9% less GDP over 10 years (a significant impact, halving the UK's average growth).

Cummings mocks the "Global Britain" clique, saying Brexit was never about that and that "Global Britain" makes no sense. But the "Global Britain" clique/Cummings' useful idiots, are the only ones on the Leave side that cared about growth. The problem with them, is this Thatcherite free market they're wedded to is something it's not clear works long term (the UK being a case study) and can't be implemented again once it's already done (hard to re-privatise). The most developed EU countries with higher productivity than the UK, all have education systems that aren't dominated by market forces. The UK cannot achieve higher productivity and growth without education/training/skills becoming much more accessible through higher government spending (Tories of every type oppose this). It's a similar story with infrastructure. The UK seems intent on instead running a deficit to basically fund consumption/the costs of living, the deficit wouldn't be as bad if it were increasing the amount of skilled people and infrastructure. Hong Kong used to be a favourite of the Tory "Global Britain" faction, before they replaced it with Singapore. But there's lessons in the economic story of Hong Kong, the ideological outlook of the HK government prevented it funding high tech business and skills (first losing ground to Japan/Taiwan/South Korea/Singapore which all have a stronger state, before losing all high tech manufacturing), very high amounts of monopolisation especially in retail (making prices for consumers very high in HK compared to peer east Asian cities), massively high property prices the HK government not allowing much to be built because of vested interests (property owners wanting to maintain high prices, and the HK government making money from high land prices, the New Territories isn't going to sold for nothing), then finally all the other cities on the Pearl River Delta getting investment and inward migration from the rest of China which HK alone used to receive (after China opened up, the difference between HK and China was reduced). HK can tell the UK a lot about what not to do, I suspect hardly any of it is widely known because it suits Tories that anything post-1985 is ignored. The UK's development looks similar to HK and that's not good, the poor in HK are packed on top of each other in cages (paying an obscene rent for the privilege).

I don't have much hope. About a third of the South Africans in the UK I know have left (roughly matches census data, so it's not some freak among my circle). In the last 5 years I know 5 English/British guys all below 35 years old who have left, 2 of those guys had never left the UK before in their lives, just packed some gear into bags got on a plane and never came back.

All anyone can do is focus on what they can control. Financially emigrating is an obvious move (it's common for middle class South Africans to offshore whatever wealth they have even if they're physically still in SA). The US is the best bet, investing in something with growth strong potential is within reach for an ordinary person there. It wasn't that hard to do well on US stocks during the pandemic, it only requires the dedication to commit to reading/research like it's a job and some cash. Much is fundamentally broken if this becomes the no brainer option but it is what it is. I suspect this dynamic is what fuels crypto.

[FalseBayFC]

wasn't £15 added to UC at the beginning of lockdown for expressly this purpose? leaving aside the extra 63M given to councils?

Give them all a 5kg bag of porridge oats
for half term.

A healthier option. I am always shocked while walking around London seeing kids eating crisps and Twix at 8am on school mornings.

[Tichtheid]

Only Labour are a truly UK party, as in they're formed by the UK itself (particularly the industrial revolution/organised workers), the Libdems and Tories are really English parties the ideas behind both can be traced back to the opposing sides in the civil war. As the UK has fragmented Labour has been the most damaged of the big three parties, they relied on the Celts and the industrial north of England to win power, they're not winning the Celts back and the industrial north is more or less a rust belt without organised workers. The weaker the UK becomes the weaker Labour becomes too, it doesn't seem to matter what Labour does. I cannot see any circumstances that Labour wins a lot of seats from the Tories in the south of England, they'll be doing well just to hold the seats they have UK wide.

Interesting post, but regarding the bit I've quoted, Labour need to win in England, it doesn't matter how the vote goes in Scotland, there just aren't enough constituencies to make a difference and some of them will be vulnerable to the Tories. I think I'm right in saying that there were only two or three small majorities for Labour wins where Scotland actually mattered, Blair, for example won with a majority greater than the number of Scottish and Welsh seats combined and increased that majority at the next election (this is from memory, so I might be mistaken, but I will be close if not exactly correct).
Norn Irn is its own entity.

[Paddington Bear]

Disagree with that - Labour are locked out of power by the rise of the SNP. They won't win enough English seats to compensate and a coalition with the SNP drives voters to the Tories.

Agree that the decline of Labour Unionism is bad news for the British nation and is linked to the decline of the heavy and national industries. I think the increasing London upper middle class clientele of the Labour Party is an underrated factor - these are the people who spend most of their lives pretending to be Irish or Scottish and are the inheritors of Orwell's 'more ashamed of standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a poor box'. Labour leadership wasn't always like that of course:

[Rinkals]

A £15 minimum wage is completely nuts though - the average wage across the country is something like £12. They've just taken the American campaign for $15 and transferred it straight across without even bothering to think about exchange rates or GDP or anything complicated like that.

That's all large parts of Labour have these days - they're a branch office of the left of the Democrats.

While I agree with a liveable minimum wage in principle, in practice I suspect that everybody simply raises their prices in a free market and pretty soon you are back to square one. Except that you've jump-started inflation and lowered your competitive advantage internationally.

[Tichtheid]

Disagree with that - Labour are locked out of power by the rise of the SNP. They won't win enough English seats to compensate and a coalition with the SNP drives voters to the Tories.

Blair won with majorities of 179, 167 and 66. There were 72 seats in Scotland at that time, so you could argue that Labour needed the Scottish votes for the 2005 election, but they won 41 seats in Scotland and it would be a stretch to say that if they had lost all of them it would have been to the Tories, there is no evidence before or since to suggest that the Tories would have been the beneficiaries of a Labour collapse, so again I'd say that Labour didn't really need Scotland to get them over the line.

Since then the number of constituencies n Scotland has been reduced to 59.

Labour won 41 of the 59 seats in 2010, so again it made no difference to the overall vote.