Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Ok cool. So the extra money paid by the mortgagee simply ceases to exist. It’s paid to the bank but is of no value because the value of zero has effectively been increased.

Sort of. It depends who the banks are borrowing from, cause "the markets" is a nebulous bullshit term. If it's imaginary money created by the central bank, then yes, it's all fictional. However, it may be from hedge funds/pensions/investors, in which case it's good news for rich people as they're getting better returns from their investments. In theory, that results in more supply of money to the banks (because more people/entities are interested in investing in lending to them), which reduces the amount that they have to pay to borrow (called "swap rates"), which then reduces the mortgage rates, as mortgage lenders start competing for your business. But there's a lot of opportunities for this not to be passed onto the average Joe, or at least not immediately.

Puja

Pension investments benefits not just rich people.

Fair, although that may not be a perspective shared by Gen Z who have bog-all in the way of pension. Everything's relative.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Sort of. It depends who the banks are borrowing from, cause "the markets" is a nebulous bullshit term. If it's imaginary money created by the central bank, then yes, it's all fictional. However, it may be from hedge funds/pensions/investors, in which case it's good news for rich people as they're getting better returns from their investments. In theory, that results in more supply of money to the banks (because more people/entities are interested in investing in lending to them), which reduces the amount that they have to pay to borrow (called "swap rates"), which then reduces the mortgage rates, as mortgage lenders start competing for your business. But there's a lot of opportunities for this not to be passed onto the average Joe, or at least not immediately.

Puja

Pension investments benefits not just rich people.

Fair, although that may not be a perspective shared by Gen Z who have bog-all in the way of pension. Everything's relative.

Puja

Not entirely relevant. Plenty of older people have shyte pensions because they haven’t had the opportunity to build their pot. Gen Z are theoretically in a good position as they are now definitely going to be offered a pension by their employer and have bags of time to contribute to it.

If they can’t afford their pension then that’s a slightly different issue, but doesn’t change he the fact that the pensions for the vast majority of people are built up via investments.

Also, I know quite a few people who invest money, not just the rich you despise so much. My uncle was a manual worker for years but still invested a few grand here and there.

And of course savers benefit from higher interest rates, although savings normally won’t make anyone rich.

[Puja]

Also, I know quite a few people who invest money, not just the rich you despise so much. My uncle was a manual worker for years but still invested a few grand here and there.

And of course savers benefit from higher interest rates, although savings normally won’t make anyone rich.

This is coming down to a generational thing again. I can guarantee you that manual workers in their 20s are not being able to invest a few grand here and there and a vanishing few of them have savings to benefit from higher interest rates. If anything, they're more likely to have debt.

It is another situation where younger people are looking at the world and seeing rents rising, food costs rising, energy costs rising, and the putative upsides are only available to those who are wealthy or those from previous generations like thee and me.

Puja

[canta_brian]

Ok cool. So the extra money paid by the mortgagee simply ceases to exist. It’s paid to the bank but is of no value because the value of zero has effectively been increased.

Sort of. It depends who the banks are borrowing from, cause "the markets" is a nebulous bullshit term. If it's imaginary money created by the central bank, then yes, it's all fictional. However, it may be from hedge funds/pensions/investors, in which case it's good news for rich people as they're getting better returns from their investments. In theory, that results in more supply of money to the banks (because more people/entities are interested in investing in lending to them), which reduces the amount that they have to pay to borrow (called "swap rates"), which then reduces the mortgage rates, as mortgage lenders start competing for your business. But there's a lot of opportunities for this not to be passed onto the average Joe, or at least not immediately.

Puja

Pension investments benefits not just rich people.

Because boomers need a leg up

[Which Tyler]

Not the right thread for this, but probably not deserving of its own, so...
WTAF?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... y-cut-down

Famous Sycamore Gap tree at Hadrian’s Wall found cut down

Police investigating after former tree of the year winner, estimated to be several hundred years old, felled

[Which Tyler]

[Sandydragon]

I'm curious how many people actually voted for 'Okay' and 'good' in that lot.

[Which Tyler]

Directly proportionate to the font size isn't it?

In other news, Peter Bone looks like being banned from parliament for 6 weeks. Which should trigger a recall petition, which, in turn, I struggle to see not getting enough signatures to trigger a by-election.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'll only truly be satisfied when it's C*nts and nothing else.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Directly proportionate to the font size isn't it?

In other news, Peter Bone looks like being banned from parliament for 6 weeks. Which should trigger a recall petition, which, in turn, I struggle to see not getting enough signatures to trigger a by-election.

It does read like something the police ought to take an interest in. I mean, ought to if it wasn't an MP, obviously.

[Sandydragon]

18k majority. Quite achievable in current climate.

[Sandydragon]

Directly proportionate to the font size isn't it?

In other news, Peter Bone looks like being banned from parliament for 6 weeks. Which should trigger a recall petition, which, in turn, I struggle to see not getting enough signatures to trigger a by-election.

It is, but there are so fe positive, or even neutral, comments that I’m curious how many in total out of that 2k survey didn’t say something critical.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... -democrats

John Curtice says Labour's byelection performance equivalent to what was happening before its 1997 landslide victory

Last night, before the byelection results were declared, CCHQ issued a damage limitation briefing to journalists saying it was normal for governments to lose byelections. A party spokesperson said:

These were always going to be challenging by-elections and the rule of thumb is that governments don’t win them. We have seen little to no enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer who voters can see stands for nothing and always puts short term political gain first.

But Prof Sir John Curtice, the leading elections expert, told the Today programme that these results could not be dismissed as standard byelection losses. He explained:

The truth is these were not ordinary government losses. The swing in Tamworth, at just below 24%, is the second biggest swing from Conservative to Labour in postwar electoral history. And at just over 20% the swing in Mid Bedfordshire is also in the top 10.

No government has previously lost to the principal opposition party a seat as safe as Tamworth. You have to go back to 1977 and the Ashfield byelection to find an equivalent.

If you want to look at the precedent – what’s the last time that we had swings of this order? The answer is the parliament of 92 to 97. There were four byelection in that in which Labour got swings of over 20% from the Conservatives, and we all now how that ended.

And, by the way, those swings also occured in byelections in which the fall in turnout was often greater than it was in these two byelections.

So the point is we are not looking at ordinary byelection losses. We are looking at exceptional swings, and swings that for the only real precedent is not a very happy one for the Conservatives.

Curtice conceded that Starmer is not as popular as Tony Blair was ahead of the 1997 general election. But he pointed out that the 12 point rise in Labour’s vote in the Mid Bedfordshire byelection matches the 12 point increase in Labour’s vote in the national opinion polls. He went on:

You can argue maybe there isn’t as much enthusiasm for Labour as there is discontent with the conservatives. But, nevertheless, when Labour have been challenged, they still managed to win that challenge.

[morepork]

Professor Sir _______

That's just an excessive title.

[Sandydragon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... -democrats

John Curtice says Labour's byelection performance equivalent to what was happening before its 1997 landslide victory

Last night, before the byelection results were declared, CCHQ issued a damage limitation briefing to journalists saying it was normal for governments to lose byelections. A party spokesperson said:

These were always going to be challenging by-elections and the rule of thumb is that governments don’t win them. We have seen little to no enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer who voters can see stands for nothing and always puts short term political gain first.

But Prof Sir John Curtice, the leading elections expert, told the Today programme that these results could not be dismissed as standard byelection losses. He explained:

The truth is these were not ordinary government losses. The swing in Tamworth, at just below 24%, is the second biggest swing from Conservative to Labour in postwar electoral history. And at just over 20% the swing in Mid Bedfordshire is also in the top 10.

No government has previously lost to the principal opposition party a seat as safe as Tamworth. You have to go back to 1977 and the Ashfield byelection to find an equivalent.

If you want to look at the precedent – what’s the last time that we had swings of this order? The answer is the parliament of 92 to 97. There were four byelection in that in which Labour got swings of over 20% from the Conservatives, and we all now how that ended.

And, by the way, those swings also occured in byelections in which the fall in turnout was often greater than it was in these two byelections.

So the point is we are not looking at ordinary byelection losses. We are looking at exceptional swings, and swings that for the only real precedent is not a very happy one for the Conservatives.

Curtice conceded that Starmer is not as popular as Tony Blair was ahead of the 1997 general election. But he pointed out that the 12 point rise in Labour’s vote in the Mid Bedfordshire byelection matches the 12 point increase in Labour’s vote in the national opinion polls. He went on:

You can argue maybe there isn’t as much enthusiasm for Labour as there is discontent with the conservatives. But, nevertheless, when Labour have been challenged, they still managed to win that challenge.

Reading the government response today, it looks like they are preparing to double down on their recent anti-woke (whatever) agenda. The next few months will be a massive sop to the Tory activists in an effort to get their core vote out. Won’t be pretty.

[Which Tyler]

Don't forget tax cuts for the rich - because that's (well, that and people trying to be nice) is the real problem with this country!

[Sandydragon]

Don't forget tax cuts for the rich - because that's (well, that and people trying to be nice) is the real problem with this country!

It’s proof that they are no longer trying to govern but at trying to energise the base and reduce the scale of their potential loss.

[Puja]

Don't forget tax cuts for the rich - because that's (well, that and people trying to be nice) is the real problem with this country!

It’s proof that they are no longer trying to govern but at trying to energise the base and reduce the scale of their potential loss.

It feels bizarre, because their base who are into that kind of shit, is very, very small, and it must be turning off more voters than it's turning on. Feels more like guaranteeing a wipeout than reducing their losses.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

You’d think so but some of it will appeal wider than just their activists. Tax cuts are never unpopular. Small
Boats appeal to an interesting variety of people. But they still
Have the problem of convincing people that they are the right people to fix the economic mess they are responsible for.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You’d think so but some of it will appeal wider than just their activists. Tax cuts are never unpopular. Small
Boats appeal to an interesting variety of people. But they still
Have the problem of convincing people that they are the right people to fix the economic mess they are responsible for.

Even those who are incensed by small boats may be beginning to realise that a) the Tories aren't dealing with it and b) hey, before the Tories (and Johnson's amazing post-Brexit deal) there was no small boats problem.

[Sandydragon]

You’d think so but some of it will appeal wider than just their activists. Tax cuts are never unpopular. Small
Boats appeal to an interesting variety of people. But they still
Have the problem of convincing people that they are the right people to fix the economic mess they are responsible for.

Even those who are incensed by small boats may be beginning to realise that a) the Tories aren't dealing with it and b) hey, before the Tories (and Johnson's amazing post-Brexit deal) there was no small boats problem.

That’s true, except it’s
Not an issue that Labour can exploit so it’s very dependent on the Tories looking incompetent. Crap weather in the early spring could be enough to claim an improvement, assuming Sunak waits that long for a GE.

If he waits to the autumn he risks a clash with the US presidential election, and not getting the sole news coverage. So it’s likely that he will go earlier in 2024 and hope everyone has forgotten as it will have largely been out of the news for a few months and Labour won’t really bring up immigration

[Son of Mathonwy]

You’d think so but some of it will appeal wider than just their activists. Tax cuts are never unpopular. Small
Boats appeal to an interesting variety of people. But they still
Have the problem of convincing people that they are the right people to fix the economic mess they are responsible for.

Even those who are incensed by small boats may be beginning to realise that a) the Tories aren't dealing with it and b) hey, before the Tories (and Johnson's amazing post-Brexit deal) there was no small boats problem.

That’s true, except it’s
Not an issue that Labour can exploit so it’s very dependent on the Tories looking incompetent. Crap weather in the early spring could be enough to claim an improvement, assuming Sunak waits that long for a GE.

If he waits to the autumn he risks a clash with the US presidential election, and not getting the sole news coverage. So it’s likely that he will go earlier in 2024 and hope everyone has forgotten as it will have largely been out of the news for a few months and Labour won’t really bring up immigration

It's possible that the UK will be such an economic basket case in 2024 that the all the small boats will be taken by Brits fleeing for France. Small boats and housing problems solved!

[Sandydragon]

Even those who are incensed by small boats may be beginning to realise that a) the Tories aren't dealing with it and b) hey, before the Tories (and Johnson's amazing post-Brexit deal) there was no small boats problem.

That’s true, except it’s
Not an issue that Labour can exploit so it’s very dependent on the Tories looking incompetent. Crap weather in the early spring could be enough to claim an improvement, assuming Sunak waits that long for a GE.

If he waits to the autumn he risks a clash with the US presidential election, and not getting the sole news coverage. So it’s likely that he will go earlier in 2024 and hope everyone has forgotten as it will have largely been out of the news for a few months and Labour won’t really bring up immigration

It's possible that the UK will be such an economic basket case in 2024 that the all the small boats will be taken by Brits fleeing for France. Small boats and housing problems solved!

Possibly, but I think with inflation looking like it will drop a bit further we will avoid anything too dramatic. I suspect the difficulty from an economic perspective will be trying to get peo0le to forget the impact Truss had. But leaving the election too long in the hope things will get better there risks something else going wrong.

I think that the only hope the conservatives have is that either Labour implodes and loses discipline, or some external event occurs which gives a patriotic boost to the government.

Labour still have a lot of ground to cover but the conservative lack of competence is a huge asset as are the manoeuvres of Tice and his band of nut jobs peeling away right wing support from Sunak.

[Donny osmond]

Do you think the 2 by-election loses will mean a later or an earlier date for the next GE? I've seen people talking about Jan 25 now.

[Sandydragon]

Do you think the 2 by-election loses will mean a later or an earlier date for the next GE? I've seen people talking about Jan 25 now.

I think spring more likely. Cold weather will depress the older vote and spring will still be ahead of the small boat season. Depends I think on how brave sunak is feeling. Polling is awful for h8m right now and is there something that he thinks will improve that? His recent policy announcements haven’t shifted the dial. His only realistic hope is to buy time for the economy to recover a bit and try slashing taxes, which would tie in with the spring statement.