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

[ladyvalerie]

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. 

To be more precise:

Labour will need to set out the details of their plans in their manifesto for the General Election; Hopefully, in the interests of democracy, the GE will be sooner rather than later.

Though I’m sure Reeves, an economist who has worked for the Bank of England, would be happy to pop over to Downing St to advise Hunt, given the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in.

[caroline]

I agree with many of the comments made above re. Labour not having to spell out their full policy platform too early especially as they have no idea yet of what the fiscal position will be at, or near, election time. I too am a bit relieved that the reversal of the income tax cuts might make the overall debt situation a bit easier for Labour but there is still plenty of time for the Tories to reap further havoc and the cost of pay settlements is going to be tricky.

Labour ARE putting forward policy plans and it is a mistake to argue that voters won’t know what Labours plans are ....the NI hike was opposed by Labour as it violated the principles of progressive taxation, the Tories modified this. Supporting energy bills for six months until a more targeted approach could be worked out was a Labour policy now adopted by the Tories, the windfall tax was advocated by Labour, partially adopted by the Tories and likely to be expanded again in line with Labour Policy. To say Labour is just supporting Tory policies is just wrong..,.. Labour is leading the policy agenda and the Tories are following because they have no ideas of their own.

Labour will be more radical when they are in government but what is the point of frightening the horses now when they are on course for a big win?

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2022 10:21:16 GMT ladyvalerie said:

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

Yes-at 31 October, to be precise. 

To be more precise:

Labour will need to set out the details of their plans in their manifesto for the General Election; Hopefully, in the interests of democracy, the GE will be sooner rather than later.

Though I’m sure Reeves, an economist who has worked for the Bank of England, would be happy to pop over to Downing St to advise Hunt, given the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in.

Yes-I like her. I think she is competent.

[steve]

Liz Truss's net favourability rating has fallen to -70

Favourable: 10% (-5 from 11-12 Oct)
Unfavourable: 80% (+9)


Which makes her the most unpopular Prime minister ( by a considerable margin) in the last 20 years.

And 22nd out of 22 in the morning consult global approval ratings

Yay Tories world leading again.

[steve]

Is it a wax work?

Is it the execution of a random Henry the VIII queen?

[crossbat11]

colin

I know one of your favourite terms to describe what you think are politically biased posts is to accuse the poster of looking at things through politically tinted "goggles". I'm going to run with this metaphor for a bit and don my red ones and look through them at what Reeves should do in response to what Hunt is likely to announce on October 31st. Running, as I say, with your terminology, I'm not going to don your blue tinted "goggles" for now.

Why should she really feel obliged to open up any "clear red water" for now, beyond what clearly already exists? Surely the method proposed by Labour to fund the energy price freeze as opposed to the one preferred by the government did just that. It was picked up clearly by the voters too and cleverly played by Labour. It carried a clear differentiation between fairness and protecting corporate interests. If your opponent's keep kicking giant footballs like that into gaping own goals, why do much else than let them keeping doing it? The blue side creating Labour's clear red water for them. Ditto bankers bonuses and top rate taxes. Many other examples too. Reeves has licence to agree with Hunt on some things too. Welcome to our world Mr Hunt. What took you so long?

What I think the Tories are desperate for Labour to do right now is to offer some hostage to fortune by announcing a detailed policy commitment on spending or tax that a centre right friendly economic think tank can claim will bankrupt Britain. This is why I think Reeves caution on detail is sensible. Just saying that all future Labour spending commitments will be fully costed and all funding sources identified, is enough for now. Plus saying that the detail will come when more is known about the extent of the damage done. Maxed out Credit cards and Tory mortgage premiums aplenty.

I think it's wholly legitimate for an Opposition to say that they deserve the right too to take potentially emergency action when the Exchequers' books are fully open and available. When they are in government in other words.

I think the voters know that the car has been crashed by the current drivers and will just be happy to see someone, anyone, else who looks like they've passed a driving test. Polls suggest that Ms Reeves is being perceived as a careful driver of a car that, sadly, has had many recent reckless drivers. No need for fancy handbrake turns and the like to impress spectators. The prospect of steady control of the steering wheel will do for now. Hunt can't be that person. His team is discredited. Terminally, I think.

[Deleted]

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

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. 

Similarly I seem to remember Truss used the excuse that she hadn't had access to information only the PM/Chancellor would have (?!!!) in order to avoid answering questions about her policies during the leadership contest e.g. how she would fix the energy crisis. Quite astonishing really, and no way the media would let Labour get away with that despite it actually being a valid excuse for them.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2022 10:37:28 GMT crossbat11 said:

colin

I know one of your favourite terms to describe what you think are politically biased posts is to accuse the poster of looking at things through politically tinted "goggles". I'm going to run with this metaphor for a bit and don my red ones and look through them at what Reeves should do in response to what Hunt is likely to announce on October 31st. Running, as I say, with your terminology, I'm not going to don your blue tinted "goggles" for now.

Why should she really feel obliged to open up any "clear red water" for now, beyond what clearly already exists? Surely the method proposed by Labour to fund the energy price freeze as opposed to the one preferred by the government did just that. It was picked up clearly by the voters too and cleverly played by Labour. It carried a clear differentiation between fairness and protecting corporate interests. If your opponent's keep kicking giant footballs like that into gaping own goals, why do much else than let them keeping doing it? The blue side creating Labour's clear red water for them. Ditto bankers bonuses and top rate taxes. Many other examples too. Reeves has licence to agree with Hunt on some things too. Welcome to our world Mr Hunt. What took you so long?

What I think the Tories are desperate for Labour to do right now is to offer some hostage to fortune by announcing a detailed policy commitment on spending or tax that a centre right friendly economic think tank can claim will bankrupt Britain. This is why I think Reeves caution on detail is sensible. Just saying that all future Labour spending commitments will be fully costed and all funding sources identified, is enough for now. Plus saying that the detail will come when more is known about the extent of the damage done. Maxed out Credit cards and Tory mortgage premiums aplenty.

I think it's wholly legitimate for an Opposition to say that they deserve the right too to take potentially emergency action when the Exchequers' books are fully open and available. When they are in government in other words.

I think the voters know that the car has been crashed by the current drivers and will just be happy to see someone, anyone, else who looks like they've passed a driving test. Polls suggest that Ms Reeves is being perceived as a careful driver of a car that, sadly, has had many recent reckless drivers. No need for fancy handbrake turns and the like to impress spectators. The prospect of steady control of the steering wheel will do for now. Hunt can't be that person. His team is discredited. Terminally, I think.

I cant disagree with any of that.

As I said I think the big prize for Starmer is the one Maguire mentions in the article I referenced-Fiscal Competence & Reliability. And taken from Cons.

So I agree that caution will still be their watchword.

I did think that a change of Tory Leader now might retrieve some VI and avoid a complete wipe out. But having just read IFS Green Budget-recession across our Continent next year, I have changed my mind. It is going to be very very tough and Cons will be blamed for all of it now.

So I think a new leader after defeat rather than an exhausted wreck is preferable. One prepared to rebuild a purpose in opposition.And anyway the factionalism which is preventing them agreeing on a clear favourite just adds to the image of a rudderless rabble with no purpose.

Whether Truss's mental state can cope with two years like that I don't know.

caveat as usual-wtf do I know about what they all think at Westminster ?

[bardin1]

I think she'll be gone by Friday, maybe by this afternoon. Either Sauron or Mordor in charge, with my money on Mordaunt.

[steve]

55% of Tory members now want the Muppet they selected just a few weeks ago to resign.

Needless to say the plurality of members want the previous convict back.

These people shouldn't be trusted to select a dessert.

[steve]

#KayBurley - So the whole cabinet all supported the mini budget before it was put to the HoC?
James Heappey - Yes
#KayBurley - So none of you knew what you were doing, so why on earth are you still running the country?
James Heappey - That's not fair comment.. "

Seems pretty fair to me.

[robbiealive]

Oct 18, 2022 10:21:16 GMT ladyvalerie said:

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

To be more precise:

Labour will need to set out the details of their plans in their manifesto for the General Election; Hopefully, in the interests of democracy, the GE will be sooner rather than later.

Though I’m sure Reeves, an economist who has worked for the Bank of England, would be happy to pop over to Downing St to advise Hunt, given the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in.

Yes Lady V. We do go round in circles on this forum. It's always those who have no intention of voting Labour who are the most interested in Labour's plans. 
As for the Tories.
All my life I have watched a partcular scene unfold. A very rich Tory politician (this time Hunt worth £50 million?) tells the voters with the solemn face of the one-nation-Tory (whatever that is!) that they are making difficult & painful decisions in the national interest, that the voters must face economic reality, make sacrifces & tighten their belts (accompanied by sideswipes that Labour hv or will create chaos). Instead of the voters throwing things and shouting "you scrofulous, useless rich bas---d, f---ked up again have you, when did you ever make a sacrifice", instead, the voters nod mechanically like those little dogs you used to see in the back of Ford Cortinas  (on the windscreens of which young couples invariably called Wayne & Sharon expressed undying love), add yet another notch to their belts, & say yes, you are right. we must suffer.
Maybe this time it will be different. What was depressing about yesterday was that neither side had much to to say about inflation, energy costs & falling living standards. The usual Parliamentary games were played out, even more unreal than usual, & quite remote from peoples' concerns. 
On tax and spending. Yesterday Reeves was pretty cagey (after all the Tories had accepted most of Labour's critique of the mini0budget) & mentioned only populist measures: windfall taxes, non-dom status & bankers' bonuses. 
Labour should get across as an attack that not increasing thresholds is a Tory tax increase and eventually that higher-rate tax relief on pensions is inequitable & should be scrapped and, more difficult, that the prosperous section of a growing old population has to pay more or get less. The most difficult tax issue of all would be a wealth tax. But all in good time. 

[hireton]

More evidence of buyers' regret amongst Tory Party members:

[leftieliberal]

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

By the end of 2024 I suspect that the welfare state will be unrecognisable and I don't expect Labour to attempt to resurrect it. We may well be heading for a system involving much more extensive means-tested co-payments for healthcare. That ought to be anathema to anyone who believes that access to health care should be independent of ability to pay, but many lefties are inexplicably fond of means-testing. A flight from publicly funded services will mean fewer middle class voters fighting for them and further declines in quality will attract less attention.

We've had co-payments in the NHS almost since the start, for dentists and opticians. I've spent over £1k this year on just one replacement crown and one new pair of spectacles (and the frames were less than £100). My dentist was telling me about the new technology which will end the need to make moulds for crowns, but it will cost him £30k to buy. You have to have a large number of people needing new crowns to be able to justify that capital expenditure.

[steamdrivenandy]

I was just wondering what sort of Parliamentary Conservative Party would remain if they were reduced to 100 seats.

I guess, for a rough guide we should look at the 100 safest seats and whether the incumbents might retire. As you couldn't really guess the faction that their replacements might join, you could have a fair idea of Tory dynamics from the remaining people.

I've tried Googling a list of safest Tory seats as at 2019 but couldn't find anything.

[leftieliberal]

Oct 18, 2022 8:04:19 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

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

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.

Another area for research is the wastage of prescribed medicines. During my wife's last illness the palliative care nurse organised a prescription for her to cover all the medicines she might need. Of them, she actually had a single dose of one, given by another palliative care nurse. After her death I took all the drugs back to the pharmacist who threw them away (and complained to me that he was having to do this too often). One wonders how much of the NHS drugs bill is wasted on medicines that are just thrown away. 

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2022 11:17:46 GMT steve said:

55% of Tory members now want the Muppet they selected just a few weeks ago to resign.

Needless to say the plurality of members want the previous convict back.

These people shouldn't be trusted to select a dessert.

This doesn't really surprise me - I believe polling showed that most Tory party members wanted Boris to remain in position before, during and after the recent leadership contest.

Of course, given the binary choice of Sunak vs. Truss they selected whichever one they preferred - these are politically-minded people after all, and voting is free - but that didn't change the fact that the one they really wanted wasn't on the ballot paper.

[Dave]

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

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.

The first paragraph explains why they are where they are and far, far, far (have I emphasised that enough? ) more importantly, why our countries are where they are.

The second paragraph has truth.   I'd replace the word 'house' with "houses" and that's their biggest, most existential problem.  It's those factions you talk of Moose.  There are just too many factions and many of them, and none of them are strong enough to hold sway over the others as they all pull in opposite directions to each other.  Whilst that is going on, there can be no unifying, or as you put it "focussing of minds".  And whilst there may be the odd cease-fire, around election times for example, because these factions are irreconcilable this cannot stop for long, or until it reaches its logical conclusion. 

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2022 12:27:14 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

I was just wondering what sort of Parliamentary Conservative Party would remain if they were reduced to 100 seats.

I guess, for a rough guide we should look at the 100 safest seats and whether the incumbents might retire. As you couldn't really guess the faction that their replacements might join, you could have a fair idea of Tory dynamics from the remaining people.

I've tried Googling a list of safest Tory seats as at 2019 but couldn't find anything.

Only a bunch of old duffers in Lincolnshire seats and Christopher Chope would be left. At least they'd finally be a united party!

[steamdrivenandy]

Oct 18, 2022 12:45:09 GMT leftieliberal said:

Oct 18, 2022 8:04:19 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

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.

Another area for research is the wastage of prescribed medicines. During my wife's last illness the palliative care nurse organised a prescription for her to cover all the medicines she might need. Of them, she actually had a single dose of one, given by another palliative care nurse. After her death I took all the drugs back to the pharmacist who threw them away (and complained to me that he was having to do this too often). One wonders how much of the NHS drugs bill is wasted on medicines that are just thrown away. 

I have a repeat prescription running at our local pharmacy for 12 months. Midway through the year a consultant reduced the dosage of one drug by half. The next month the pharmacy provided both dosages of that particular pill. Luckily they checked how many meds they were handing over to me and I realised the problem. The pharmacist thanked me and took out the higher dosage packet, saying that if I'd returned them after leaving the shop they would have had to throw them away, however as I'd told them at the counter, they could put them back into stock.

[leftieliberal]

Oct 18, 2022 9:16:12 GMT bardin1 said:

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

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

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

Rather than capping total ISA holdings, I would prefer a lower limit on the amount you can put into an ISA each year. The current level (£20k, I think) is far too high. If we reduced it to, say £5k, that would take 20 years savings to reach your cap.

7) Progressively remove financial support from all but state mixed sex non religious schools

You run into problems with the Equality Act here. Living as I do in a London Borough with a majority of ethnic minorities, I am aware that some parents, most but not all of them Muslim, want their daughters to attend single-sex girls' secondary schools (we have one in the Borough).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

Once you decide that you are going to remove the right of a particular group protected under this Act, you are weakening the rights of all under the Act.

"The Act protects people against discrimination, harassment or victimisation in employment, and as users of private and public services based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation." 

[bardin1]

Oct 18, 2022 13:17:43 GMT leftieliberal said:

Oct 18, 2022 9:16:12 GMT bardin1 said:

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

Rather than capping total ISA holdings, I would prefer a lower limit on the amount you can put into an ISA each year. The current level (£20k, I think) is far too high. If we reduced it to, say £5k, that would take 20 years savings to reach your cap.

7) Progressively remove financial support from all but state mixed sex non religious schools

You run into problems with the Equality Act here. Living as I do in a London Borough with a majority of ethnic minorities, I am aware that some parents, most but not all of them Muslim, want their daughters to attend single-sex girls' secondary schools (we have one in the Borough).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

Once you decide that you are going to remove the right of a particular group protected under this Act, you are weakening the rights of all under the Act.

"The Act protects people against discrimination, harassment or victimisation in employment, and as users of private and public services based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation." 

4) Good idea - yes

7) I realised as i typed  it that the equalities issues was there. (Ironically as all I am suggesting is funding for the same basic educational opportunities for everyone, whereas schools with restricted entry criteria arguably have  the opposite intent)

That particular argument is a minefield, I know (from personal experience - I worked with ethnic minority groups in Walthamstow and Leyton way back in the 80s and learned from the debates around schools and colleges - one memorable discussion was with a group whose main purpose was to prevent young women at the local college being permitted to encounter young men in their lunch breaks)

It's a personal bugbear one and probably unattainable but in Scotland I believe state funding of schools for different religions holds us back from being a truly equal society by encouraging religious bigotry.

[pjw1961]

Oct 18, 2022 12:45:09 GMT leftieliberal said:

Oct 18, 2022 8:04:19 GMT steamdrivenandy said:

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.

Another area for research is the wastage of prescribed medicines. During my wife's last illness the palliative care nurse organised a prescription for her to cover all the medicines she might need. Of them, she actually had a single dose of one, given by another palliative care nurse. After her death I took all the drugs back to the pharmacist who threw them away (and complained to me that he was having to do this too often). One wonders how much of the NHS drugs bill is wasted on medicines that are just thrown away. 

On a UK wide basis the cost of unused drugs was estimated in 2015 to be £300m per annum. Unfortunately all unused drugs have to be destroyed for reasons of clinical safety. 
 
Another factor to the idiotic Coffey's admission of illegal behaviour with prescription drugs is that she shouldn't have a stockpile anyway. If you are prescribed a course of drugs such as anti-biotics you should always finish it, not stop when you start to feel better.  
 

[steve]

Imagine replacing Priti Patel because she wasn't right wing enough!
Well you don't have to it's done.

youtu.be/zORccNMT2UE

[neilj]

Re prescriptions in England, in 2008 88% were issued free and only 12% were paid for. Will be even less now as more exemptions have been added
There are lots of exemptions, the young, the over 60's, pregnant women, those on universal credit, some chronic conditions etc
It is one of the reasons I would be against charging for Doctors appointments etc. The large majority wouldn't pay and it would just be a bureaucratic system with little financial reward for the Government
Unless the Government introduced a system with no exemptions snd I cannot see that happening, rightly.

[davwel]

Sarah Montague on World @ One once again allowing a government minister, Rachel Maclean, to talk of spending cuts without a challenge.

No questions on whyever not raise income tax on the better-off, or NI. No questions on the damage that will result from not paying workers, especially in the public sector, a rise in line with inflation. No questions on the effect that strikes caused by the Tory government will do to our world reputation, causing investors to sell pounds and buy currencies of countries treating all citizens fairly.

[neilj]

Labour even lead on Brexit!

[wb61]

Oct 18, 2022 14:05:02 GMT davwel said:

Sarah Montague on World @ One once again allowing a government minister, Rachel Maclean, to talk of spending cuts without a challenge.

No questions on whyever not raise income tax on the better-off, or NI. No questions on the damage that will result from not paying workers, especially in the public sector, a rise in line with inflation. No questions on the effect that strikes caused by the Tory government will do to our world reputation, causing investors to sell pounds and buy currencies of countries treating all citizens fairly.

It might be remembered that Sara Montague won an equal pay case against the BBC when John Humphries earned significantly in excess of her then salary of £133,00 p.a. with a £400,000 settlement (subject to tax), comparing herself to John Humphries who was earning in excess of £600,000 p.a. (2018 figures). It is to be imagined that her current pay is closer to the latter figure than the former. Some might argue that presenters in such a position should have to declare an interest before asking questions on personal taxation policy  

[wb61]

polling on the impact of Brexit on the economy and what relationship we should have with the EU:

institute.global/policy/moving-how-british-public-views-brexit-and-what-it-wants-future-relationship-european-union

[jimjam]

Neil,

Do you know what the Headline VI lead for Labour from the survey that those issue rating numbers are drawn from, if there is one?

A lead of 1% for example if the poll lead is 30% is indictive of a potential future drag etc.

Most of the aggregate scores are less than 50% with only Labours' high NHS pushing that one over.

I assume don't know would be an option and non-voters are be included.

That works both ways as taking out non-voters increases the Lab lead on those measures of course.

Labour would expect more than a 17% lead on the economy at this time and among likely voters probably are mid 20s.