01-Oct 2022 : LAB: 46% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 6%

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2022 7:03:52 GMT alec said:

@janus - I think you are correct; there is a danger for Labour, and the rest of us, that Hunt maneuvers the debate onto the right wing orthodoxy that spending needs to take the strain. However, I think after the austerity years that's going to be difficult and unpopular, as we are already seeing, and this gives Labour an opportunity to do some challenging of orthodoxies themselves, just like the 55 Tufton Street brigade, but this time with much more sense. Whether Labour under Starmer take the opportunity, I don't know.

The point here is that the conservative capitalist model in play since the 1970s dictates that the less well off, working age people have to bear the brunt, whatever the global circumstances; inflation, budget deficit, low productivity - whatever the issue, the well off parts of the system are left intact as 'incentives' but the lower down the scale you go, the less icentive matters and the more 'efficiency' takes over.

Four measures Labour could adopt to challenge the orthodoxy would be;

1) Rebalancing the tax system so well off pensioners pay a fairer share (changes to income tax/NI etc)
2) Suspending or scrapping higher rate pension tax relief (c £15bn)
3) Returning to the system where land for development was effectively nationalised, with land compulsorily purchased by LAs at normal market values, consented for development and then sold with a proportion of the planning gain, but this time with the uplift in value pocketed by LAs to pay for the infrastructure we need. This was formerly supported by Winston Churchill, would be good for growth as well as fiscal budgets, and many of our housing probems have their origins in the Conservative scrapping of this system.
4) A properly constructed, fairly distributed inheritance charge on all estates to pay for free social care. Every above a certain limit (say £100,000) pays a 5%(?) levy after death, no exceptions, and we get a free at the point of delivery National Care Service. Good for growth again.

All this is very obvious to me.

Truss was absolutely right to tilt at established orthodoxy; it's just that she chose entirely the wrong orthodoxies to attack.

I'd prefer a proper value or wealth tax to inheritance tax.

[Deleted]

lens

I don't want to make too much of it - and only half believe it - but there is an argument for not making it "free", but rather "completely affordable to all".

Argument goes that there is a section of the population who have a "I didn't want to waste your time, doctor" when presenting with a condition that they really should have gone with much earlier, and a modest charge may make them feel better about making an appointment - that they aren't getting something for nothing.

I suspect it wouldn't work out as you hope:
- the 'worried well' will feel that as they're paying for the privilege, they're entitled to take up a medic's time just in case;
- a token fee obviously runs the greatest risk of costing more in administration than it generates;
- a lot of people don't feel as well off as the system thinks they are, so although they could (per the experts who set the fee, designed the means test) easily afford to go to the doctor when they need to, they try to economise.

[Danny]

ISW daily report not got much to say on front line movements, but again more about propaganda. They mentione the recent incident where conscripts turned their weapons on their officer, it seems because he insulted Allah. Russia has been disproportionately drafting ethnic minorities to their army, and ISW see this as a growing problem having created an army which doesnt want to fight for Russia.

Meanwhile there are claims the Wagner group private army is doing much of the useful fighting for Russia in Ukraine.

ISW see Russia's inceasing use of iranian drones and now purchases of iranian missiles as further evidence Russia has run low on its own supplies.

The SU34 which recently crashed into a Russian apartment block seems to have suffered engine failure while fully fueled and armed, presumably setting out on some patrol. That might be a significant straw in the wind about maintenance levels, or just bad luck. I read another report saying Russia is now preparing old jets in storage for use. Begs the question who might fly them, but the pilot of the recent crash ejected.

US senate asking for major arms purchases by the US armed forces. Thats rather pertinent for the Uk too. Much modern military planning has assumed wars could only be short, yet here we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia where the winner might be the side which does not run out of ammunition.  Little indication the UK is buying new stocks.

[alec]

Brave boys, these Iranian police - www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/18/iranian-schoolgirl-beaten-to-death-for-refusing-to-sing-pro-regime-anthem

Beating a 16 year girl to death for refusing to sing a 'patriotic' song praising your leader. It doesn't get any more manly than that, does it?

[alec]

nickp - "I'd prefer a proper value or wealth tax to inheritance tax."

I think to fund a universal service for the long term, you need a more universal means to pay for it.

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2022 7:18:12 GMT alec said:

Brave boys, these Iranian police - www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/18/iranian-schoolgirl-beaten-to-death-for-refusing-to-sing-pro-regime-anthem

Beating a 16 year girl to death for refusing to sing a 'patriotic' song praising your leader. It doesn't get any more manly than that, does it?

Victors write the history books, so that rather remains to be seen. Russia is fighting a war of survival against terrible threats from superior western forces which have been on the verge of invading for years. Russia must fight for right. Must free ukraine from western invasion. Russians understand suffering may be inevitable and terrible things will have to be done to achive victory and finally freedom.

[Danny]

Defence minister james Heapey being interviewed on R4 was asked whether the west has been far too slow in supplying air defence systems to Ukraine. He said no. And then spent 5 minutes saying how wonderful these drone are so that we are buying them for ourselves. I was a little confused how this justified not supplying air defences?

Also mentioned plans to stop ex RAF pilots being hired by the Chinese to teach them about UK tactics.  Um. Did they just think of this because of whats been going on in Ukraine and realising how useful it is for Ukraine that we are training troops for them?

[johntel]

Oct 18, 2022 7:03:52 GMT alec said:

@janus - I think you are correct; there is a danger for Labour, and the rest of us, that Hunt maneuvers the debate onto the right wing orthodoxy that spending needs to take the strain. However, I think after the austerity years that's going to be difficult and unpopular, as we are already seeing, and this gives Labour an opportunity to do some challenging of orthodoxies themselves, just like the 55 Tufton Street brigade, but this time with much more sense. Whether Labour under Starmer take the opportunity, I don't know.

The point here is that the conservative capitalist model in play since the 1970s dictates that the less well off, working age people have to bear the brunt, whatever the global circumstances; inflation, budget deficit, low productivity - whatever the issue, the well off parts of the system are left intact as 'incentives' but the lower down the scale you go, the less icentive matters and the more 'efficiency' takes over.

Four measures Labour could adopt to challenge the orthodoxy would be;

1) Rebalancing the tax system so well off pensioners pay a fairer share (changes to income tax/NI etc)
2) Suspending or scrapping higher rate pension tax relief (c £15bn)
3) Returning to the system where land for development was effectively nationalised, with land compulsorily purchased by LAs at normal market values, consented for development and then sold with a proportion of the planning gain, but this time with the uplift in value pocketed by LAs to pay for the infrastructure we need. This was formerly supported by Winston Churchill, would be good for growth as well as fiscal budgets, and many of our housing probems have their origins in the Conservative scrapping of this system.
4) A properly constructed, fairly distributed inheritance charge on all estates to pay for free social care. Every above a certain limit (say £100,000) pays a 5%(?) levy after death, no exceptions, and we get a free at the point of delivery National Care Service. Good for growth again.

All this is very obvious to me.

Truss was absolutely right to tilt at established orthodoxy; it's just that she chose entirely the wrong orthodoxies to attack.

I'd certainly vote for any party that proposed these measures.

[Danny]

Oct 18, 2022 7:19:37 GMT alec said:

nickp - "I'd prefer a proper value or wealth tax to inheritance tax."

I think to fund a universal service for the long term, you need a more universal means to pay for it.

Its called tax. The current crisis and its resolution well illustrated that the government's refusal to use tax to raise money was precisely the problem.

Interestingly, someone on the news observed that labour have very little difference to con in their plans in this respect. Corbyn might have done so, but they got rid of him - albeit less spectacularly than con have been savaging Truss.  Con dumped an out of line anti tax PM while lab dumped an out of line pro tax leader. This rather illustrates both parties are converging on identical policies. Well, did so years ago. Whats the point voting lab if they would have done the same as con?

The swing to lab at the moment is clearly an anti con swing, not a pro lab swing. Lab has done nothing to attract voters, just kept quiet.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2022 5:22:30 GMT Danny said:

Oct 17, 2022 21:53:03 GMT pjw1961 said:

Founders of the NHS believed that once people were treated cost would fall because they were now well. Whereas what realy happned is they lived longer and therefore used medical services even more. Anything which discourages visits will see them off faster and therefore cut costs. Much the same way waiting for treatments kills off people and therefore manages demand for NHS services.

Similarly to ease costs for the NHS you should abandon screening programs and remove restrictions on tobacco sales. But really, if your goal is to save money spent on health and try to be as cost effective as possible with it, then spending a trillion pounds public and private on lockdowns during the covid epidemic was utter insanity. It was utterly not cost effective medical expenditure. A point made in a report as long ago as 2020 before most of that money had been squandered.

You have made these sorts of comments before. I hope they are not actually your views, as they are inhuman in their brutality. Nobody who works in the NHS from top to bottom prioritises money over patient care. It runs directly contrary to the core values of the NHS as set out in the NHS constitution: 

Working together for patients.

Respect and dignity.

Commitment to quality of care.

Compassion.

Improving lives.

Everyone counts.

www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/working-health/working-nhs/nhs-constitution

 

[steamdrivenandy]

Oct 17, 2022 21:52:18 GMT @isa said:

Oct 17, 2022 21:17:33 GMT @janus said:

There's no 'could be' about it. I've no idea whether Truss is a contact lens wearer, but I posted the info because of comments about rapid blinking being a sign of anxiety, lying, other sinister things. I don't want UKPR2ites tarring innocent contact lens wearers.

Having worn initially hard, latterly gas permeable, (still hard), contact lenses for over 40 years, I have never noticed that they made me blink more frequently. Neither has anyone ever made such an observation to me. Maybe I've just been lucky.

I think you have been.

I wore similar contacts for 20 years but gave them up 20 years ago because of constant eye irritation, which did make me blink a lot.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2022 21:12:29 GMT @janus said:

 at some point Reeves and Starmer are going to come under pressure to explain how they will do a better job than Hunt of maintaining public services whilst remaining fiscally responsible.

Yes-at 31 October, to be precise. 

[steamdrivenandy]

Oct 17, 2022 23:45:35 GMT oldnat said:

Oct 17, 2022 21:53:03 GMT pjw1961 said:

I'm not sure quite how you see the "means-tested co-payments for healthcare" would work but I will make a point that I have made on here before but which I think a lot of people used to commercial private and quasi-commercial public-sector businesses find counter-intuitive. 

Hospitals possess no systems for checking entitlement to receive care, other than in the limited case of non-emergency treatment of overseas patients
Hospitals possess no systems to charge patients for care or to deal with payments from patients
Hospitals have no arrangements for pursuing patients who do not pay 

The reason is simple; they have never needed them. To create these sort of systems in every hospital - whether run in-house or outsourced - will cost hundreds of millions in IT and labour costs and it is likely that there would be a high non-collection rate. Charging patients for hospital treatment might produce income but would also come with a lot of cost.  

It is also likely to carry hidden costs. We know from before the NHS was created that people chose not to have illnesses treated due to the cost. The result is that when they do eventually present they are much sicker and need more expensive treatment. So counter-intuitively it is quite possible that making the NHS not free at the point of delivery could end up costing a lot of money. 

I think that, in the UK, only NHS England charges for prescriptions (though with a range of exemptions and discounts in various ways)

I remember the arguments for and against prescription charges at the time when they were abolished in Scotland, and one of the strongest was that the administrative costs were eliminated and all the money went on patient care. (There were other arguments both ways).

Has the cost effectiveness (and the health effectiveness) of prescription charges in England compared to rUK been researched? I would assume so, since it's an obvious research topic.

Another area for research (possibly linked) is how many prescriptions given by doctors aren't actually presented for fulfilment by pharmacists. Comparing Scottish figures to English could be illuminating as to whether some people decide not to 'buy' medications in England after they've been prescribed. Taken over a whole population you could conclude whether the charge puts off fulfilment and potentially leads to presentation with worse symptoms and higher costs later on.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2022 21:53:03 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 17, 2022 21:12:29 GMT @janus said:

I'm not sure quite how you see the "means-tested co-payments for healthcare" would work

This ( four year old) study provides interesting comparisons of Health/Social care funding models in "high income" countries.

It also describes the switch in Germany to Statutory Health Insurance and subsequent tinkering with it.



 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://health.org.uk/sites/default/files/Social%20care%20funding%20-%20international%20evidence_web.pdf

( just copy & paste into a Google search)

[eotw]

This is where we are at

[Dave]

Taking the last few days, and yesterday in particular in, it's clear they are going to hit our countries with austerity 2.  

This will be some pitch for them to deliver. In 2010 they used the line "we're having to cut public services because Labour tanked the economy" (I know, I know) in order to justify austerity and what they really wanted to do - shrink the state, i.e. decimate public services. Now they are preparing the ground to say on the 31st "sorry, but we'll have to cut public services".  Of course they won't dwell in their role in tanking the economy this time around but can clearly see their silver lining - another opportunity to smash the 'blob', or what the average person would call important public services.  

So without a blink or an acknowledgement that 12 years have been all but wasted it's back to where we started, Back to the Future if you like, with austerity 2. Can you imagine the deserved furore if this was Labour and they had had twelve years, four PMs, four chancellors in three months and we were in effect not just back where we started but in an even worse position?

[moosepoll]

I think the Gov should have placed a Covid recovery Tax when they could have got away with it. The NI rise was the right policy but has been scrapped which now leaves a massive shortfall in the finances of Social Care and the NHS.

The Conservatives are an ideologically destroyed party. There are too many conflicting factions who do not have enough numbers to control the agenda and party. Infighting and snakish politics has led to total instability in government.

It would be very sensible for them to go to the polls next year and take some time in opposition to focus minds and get house in order.

Labour is not going to be able to repair the economy easily which means they can be ousted after 1 term. The single biggest thing other than Putin giving up in Ukraine that can improve things is to re-join the single market. This is going to be the key factor in the election after next. The so called blue/red wall will not like this policy but Tory heartlands will go for it. The Torys need to regain Liberal Democrat protest voters by moving clearly to slightly right of centre.

[steamdrivenandy]

Do my ears and eyes deceive me or has the Tory party decided that Truss is actually going to stay on as PM?

She looks like she wants to be put out of her misery. I can't believe that the Tories think she should continue and looking at her abject figure I can't believe she's pushing hard to remain in the post. So how come the sudden round of supportive statements?

[steve]

Latest yougov prime minister favourability Truss -70% with just 20% of Tories support.

[crossbat11]

Fairly predictably, Labour's opponents, essentially the Tories, although other versions are available, are very keen to get stuck into them at the earliest opportunity. Get on the front foot. Kuennsberg, often a canary in the mineshaft in terms of discerning likely attack lines to come, was at it on Sunday. "OK, what yer got then? Come on, let's see it. It's all very well criticising the (brave boys in) government, but what would you do any differently? Yeah. Tax non-doms? Peanuts isn't it? Yeah. You've got a black hole to fill (no real mention of whose ineptitude caused it) so how yer going to fill it? Windfall taxes? Again peanuts. You haven't got a plan, have you? " And on we go.

So Tory sympathisers want to get on the attack quickly. October 31st isn't just about a mini-budget to try and stabilise the economy it's a political event and exercise too. It usually is with the Tories. Toryland will hope it "smokes Labour out" so instead of having to defend their own appalling handling of our economic affairs they can instead attack the opposition's. They will have many media allies too. What yer got Reeves? Yeah.

My advice to Labour is not play the game on rapidly shrinking Tory territory. By default they've won the economic competence argument by just not being this Tory Government already.

Duck and weave, tease out some general known popular policy, but ride the anti-Tory surf for a while yet. Only Tory partisans want Labour detail to pore over and dismantle, the electorate aren't remotely there yet.

Let the Tories swing in the wind a while longer. Get their fingerprints all over this chaos first before writing manifestos and detailed fiscal policies. Keep it general, keep kicking the Tories and let the electorate do the rest. Sensible opposition politics in other words.

There's plenty of time for alternative budgets to come. Rachel Reeves won't even have to do a John Smith a la 1992, I don't think. I suspect it will be all over for the Tories whenever they decide to put their record to the electorate and seek re-election upon it.

This feels like one of those political periods when just not being a Tory politician is enough. I mean, have you seen these polls? Good golly gosh as they say. Almost unbreakable Ming Vase country.

[steve]

crossbat11
Ignoring the Tory lies back in 2010 converting a banker greed generated crisis into paying nurses and teachers more as the cause didn't play out well did it.

This is a Tory generated crisis and Labour need to focus on that.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2022 7:53:34 GMT colin said:

Oct 17, 2022 21:12:29 GMT @janus said:

 at some point Reeves and Starmer are going to come under pressure to explain how they will do a better job than Hunt of maintaining public services whilst remaining fiscally responsible.

Yes-at 31 October, to be precise. 

I disagree. Crossbat11 has just made some valid points on this, so I will make an additional one. It is not a party political point, as would apply to the Conservatives in opposition.  

Governments have access to the full resources of the Civil Service and a whole bunch of other official institutions. The official opposition gets limited briefings as well, but nothing on the same scale. Therefore it is always for the Government to set out its economic, fiscal and spending plans in detail. The opposition is entitled to review and critique them before reaching any firm conclusions. Government and Opposition and not direct equal and opposite in this regard; the government has all the advantages. Therefore to expect the opposition to have fully worked out plans when they haven't seen the detail of the state of the finances is not reasonable and everyone knows it. 

However, I do think Hunt reversing the tax cuts is a boon to Labour. They no longer have to find the money for the 1p cut in income tax for example. If Labour win the next election they will inherit trashed public services, but maybe the public finances in better shape than Truss/Kwarteng would have left them. 

[steamdrivenandy]

Oct 18, 2022 8:58:54 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 18, 2022 7:53:34 GMT colin said:

Yes-at 31 October, to be precise. 

 If Labour win the next election they will inherit trashed public services, but maybe the public finances in better shape than Truss/Kwarteng would have left them. 

Maybe those last few words should read 'intended to leave them'.

[shevii]

Oct 18, 2022 8:34:04 GMT moosepoll said:

I think the Gov should have placed a Covid recovery Tax when they could have got away with it. The NI rise was the right policy but has been scrapped which now leaves a massive shortfall in the finances of Social Care and the NHS.

The Conservatives are an ideologically destroyed party. There are too many conflicting factions who do not have enough numbers to control the agenda and party. Infighting and snakish politics has led to total instability in government.

It would be very sensible for them to go to the polls next year and take some time in opposition to focus minds and get house in order.

Labour is not going to be able to repair the economy easily which means they can be ousted after 1 term. The single biggest thing other than Putin giving up in Ukraine that can improve things is to re-join the single market. This is going to be the key factor in the election after next. The so called blue/red wall will not like this policy but Tory heartlands will go for it. The Torys need to regain Liberal Democrat protest voters by moving clearly to slightly right of centre.

Agree apart from the one term thing because I can't see how the Tories get forgiven so quickly or admit their failures with a shiny new leader and the new leader will have to admit those failures unlike the Lib Dems who got stuck for being same old same old.  If you took 2005 as an example Lab only got 35% but got in because the Tories were still seen as not fit for government so Lib Dem vote was high.  Of course a lot depends on the next two years and whether they can turn things around a little bit and not leave office entirely disgraced, how Labour perform in their first term, and what alternatives surface.  Greens are an alternative for fed up Lab voters but no obvious ones on the ROC at present. Lib Dems, even that far on, are unlikely to see a full blown Cleggmania again.

[alurqa]

Oct 18, 2022 7:03:35 GMT steve said:

As working people face a decade of low wages because of Tory brexitanian luddites with a " black hole" in already emasculated public services of £30 billion.
It's worth considering that the richest 0.1% in the UK have wealth of around a staggering £2.6 trillion if and I appreciate there are huge logistic difficulties with this a 1% wealth tax could be applied this on its own would virtually eliminate the shortfall from individuals who frankly wouldn't notice it had gone as it would be reaquired within weeks.

The richest 10% of the population in the UK have 230 times the wealth of the poorest  10% wealth inequality of these levels in the UK is toxic to a functioning society.

Ah, but we have freedom of movement of capital. So how do you pin down the jelly that is this wealth so you can tax it?

The little people put their efforts into complaining about people being allowed to travel because they will swamp our country, which pleases the rich because then we forget about the freedom they have to move their wealth well away from where anybody else can get their hands on it.

[bardin1]

Oct 18, 2022 7:03:52 GMT alec said:

@janus - I think you are correct; there is a danger for Labour, and the rest of us, that Hunt maneuvers the debate onto the right wing orthodoxy that spending needs to take the strain. However, I think after the austerity years that's going to be difficult and unpopular, as we are already seeing, and this gives Labour an opportunity to do some challenging of orthodoxies themselves, just like the 55 Tufton Street brigade, but this time with much more sense. Whether Labour under Starmer take the opportunity, I don't know.

The point here is that the conservative capitalist model in play since the 1970s dictates that the less well off, working age people have to bear the brunt, whatever the global circumstances; inflation, budget deficit, low productivity - whatever the issue, the well off parts of the system are left intact as 'incentives' but the lower down the scale you go, the less icentive matters and the more 'efficiency' takes over.

Four measures Labour could adopt to challenge the orthodoxy would be;

1) Rebalancing the tax system so well off pensioners pay a fairer share (changes to income tax/NI etc)
2) Suspending or scrapping higher rate pension tax relief (c £15bn)
3) Returning to the system where land for development was effectively nationalised, with land compulsorily purchased by LAs at normal market values, consented for development and then sold with a proportion of the planning gain, but this time with the uplift in value pocketed by LAs to pay for the infrastructure we need. This was formerly supported by Winston Churchill, would be good for growth as well as fiscal budgets, and many of our housing probems have their origins in the Conservative scrapping of this system.
4) A properly constructed, fairly distributed inheritance charge on all estates to pay for free social care. Every above a certain limit (say £100,000) pays a 5%(?) levy after death, no exceptions, and we get a free at the point of delivery National Care Service. Good for growth again.

All this is very obvious to me.

Truss was absolutely right to tilt at established orthodoxy; it's just that she chose entirely the wrong orthodoxies to attack.

I agree with your last point and an interesting list

My bucket list of this sort would include


1) Raise the personal allowance substantially, and all the subsequent thresholds only partially until stability achieved
2) A percentage tax rise on all bands above the initial rate specifically hypothecated to improve NHS pay and infrastructure
3) Raise VAT (with some exceptions - books, draught beer- the latter to hep preserve pubs)
4) Cap ISA holdings to £100,000 (allowing holdings currently above that to be retained until the death of their holder). ISAs have become a tax dodge for the rich
5) agree with scrapping  higher rate tax relief on pensions
6) Review the current rules on 'houses in multiple occupation' to encourage letting within houses by reducing tax consequences (we have two properties attached to our house. One we let oiut to two young local people who run a local business. We would like to do the same for the other but tax implications are such we have to air b'n'b it instead.
7) Progressively remove financial support from all but state mixed sex non religious schools (ie new private, religious or single sex schools would need to be 100% private funded, older ones would have their funding support tapered away over a long period - say 50 years)


I would also try to improve the prospects for small local providers of basic services - butchers, bakers, greengrocers, candlestickmakers, post offices pubs by setting up a system where there was a local opportunity in each community of a certain size (ward level, in effect0 outside the cities such that one business in each category, bid for under a 5 year contract system, would have no or very low business rates - in effect a community service rate. This would helpt to prevvent the decline of such businesses and also assist with reducing the need to use fossil fuels to travel

[alurqa]

Oct 18, 2022 7:16:42 GMT Danny said:

US senate asking for major arms purchases by the US armed forces. Thats rather pertinent for the Uk too. Much modern military planning has assumed wars could only be short, yet here we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia where the winner might be the side which does not run out of ammunition.  Little indication the UK is buying new stocks.

Well the Second World War (the one after the war to end all wars) was won by the side that didn't run out of oil. Hitler never made it to Baku. And Rommel ironically drove straight over the (soon to be discovered) vast oil reserves of Libya.

[Deleted]

Patrick Maguire ; Red Box editor, writes in today's Times about Labour strategy now.

He says :-

"Keir Starmer knows he must not scare the voters.The Labour leader fears being too cautious but he and Rachel Reeves are haunted by the disaster of 2015"

"2015, when Miliband lost on a manifesto dismissed both as too hostile to business and too accepting of austerity, depending on which half of the party’s electoral coalition you happened to be speaking to."

Maguire concludes with :-

"When Jeremy Hunt comes before the Commons with a package of spending cuts in a fortnight, the shadow chancellor will face a choice: back the government, or chart a course of clear red water. We are about to learn what caution really means."

...having also written :-

"Starmer’s closest confidants say he is ready to seize the moment and steal the Conservative mantle of fiscal credibility."

I think he is spot on with the latter comment. Its an open goal -and a huge strategic prize.

I notice that Hunt's response to Reeves yesterday started with the observation that she hadn't disagreed with any of his proposals. He couched this remark in context of cross party agreement to the Money Market crisis, but it had a clear political edge too.

So on Oct 31 -will he be able to make the same claim again or will Reeves open up that "clear red water".?

Lets assume that Hunt has done his homework with BoE/OBR/Gilt buyers , and produces a package which enables OBR to forecast falling Debt/GDP %. My guess is that Starmer will not want Reeves to be portrayed as disagreeing fundamentally with it. Any alternative offering on tax raising will be clearly marked "fair" to the average voter.

My guess is Starmer will want to grab that mantle which Maguire mentions-ie-We support this package to retrieve the countries ( aka Labour's) fiscal credibility from the Tories. Clear Red Water will be for the future-ie Macro Economic Policy/Industrial Strategy blah blah blah.-a space which the Tories do not even occupy, let alone have policies for.

All neatly wrapped up as -What are the Tories for now?.

A question already asked by Sir Edward Leigh MP

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2022 9:08:45 GMT shevii said:

Oct 18, 2022 8:34:04 GMT moosepoll said:

 If you took 2005 as an example Lab only got 35% but got in because the Tories were still seen as not fit for government so Lib Dem vote was high.  

The Lib Dem vote was high also because of Iraq, which Charles Kennedy opposed but Labour and Conservatives supported. So if you weren't happy about Iraq, in England at least, voting LD was the option. 

[Deleted]

Germany's latest thinking on energy bills :-

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/10/germany-to-pay-december-gas-bills-for-households-and-businesses