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

[crossbat11]

Oct 3, 2022 8:58:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 3, 2022 8:26:43 GMT crossbat11 said:

I wonder whether the Brazilian presidential race yesterday is further evidence of dodgy opinion polls disfiguring elections. They were obviously hopelessly wrong (again!), but to what extent did they influence voting too? That's my concern about them and why I believe they should be banned during campaigns. Did they generate complacency amongst Lula supporters and stimulate greater determination to turn out for Bolansaro voters yesterday?

They manage expectation levels too. I think that wasn't a bad result at all for the Brazilian Left and Lula yesterday, but all is despair and disappointment because they/he underperformed the polling. Boost for Bolansaro because he exceeded expectations.

Sadly, the expectations were massaged by duff data from opinion polls.

The polls weren't too far out for Lula - they were saying 50 or 51% with a MoE of 2% and he got 48%. The problem was they were way out on Bolsonaro, having him down in the thirties when he actually got 43%. Evidence of a 'shy fascist' effect perhaps. People unwilling to admit they were going to vote for someone of his ilk. 

Well, yes, they were half right I suppose. They got one candidate close and the other way out. That's still quite a miss in a two horse race and I stick to my point about how polling, particularly wildly inaccurate polling, can have a malign effect mid-campaign. They don't really serve democracy at all in that respect.

I'm very sympathetic to countries where polls are banned once an election campaign gets underway.

If nothing else it would make that 10.05pm exit poll on election night an absolute zinger. Sir John Curtice, the nation holds its breath for you!!

[alec]

New post on the covid thread about the rise of variant BQ1.1, for those interested. Looks like the candidate for the next big wave, among a crowded field.

[wb61]

robbiealive

I am sorry that I worded my response so poorly that it appeared to be a comment personal to you rather than my intention which was to make a broad point. I thought the use of the word "against" was indicative of the way in these matters become "us and them" issues in the Labour party. I did not think that, necessarily, you would believe it was directed specifically at you. It seems to me that the use of the word was interesting because "against Corbyn" was the way it was portrayed by both his supporters and detractors. This is, historically and now, a problem of the left of centre generally. My use of the word "religious" was again used inappropriately, I now realise as a response to your post, I should have expressed my ideas without reference to that jumping off point. The idea I was attempting to convey was that these issues quickly dissolve into an ideological creed, where argument about policy become lost; an absence of dialogue .
It is a strength, I believe, to have a range of ideas and discussion can hone these ideas into workable and popular policies. The problem the Labour party faces (now coming from some on the left towards Starmer) is when there is a crossfire of monologues without any intellectual engagement. That was the broad point I was trying to make, so once again apologies that it was so ineptly expressed.

An anecdote: in early 1997 Robin Cooke came to speak to a Labour Party campaign preparation meeting in Swansea (I was there) it was clear from what he said that there was dialogue between left and right, at least at shadow cabinet level, when he spoke to us in these terms "we have the over the counter five pledges as policy, but policy is much broader and what we have under the counter is a number of policies more in keeping with the Old Labour principles". I hope that is going on now.

[alec]

Confirms my sense that conversations about cuts will keep returning to the bizarre refusal to claw back taxpayer funded profits to the energy sector via a windfall tax -

This budget fiasco has only just begun.

[thylacine]

Oct 3, 2022 9:01:38 GMT leftieliberal said:

Oct 2, 2022 23:47:45 GMT oldnat said:

Anent workhouses



Modern historical research, however, has suggested that for many in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, the workhouse was a welcome relief from poverty, and vulnerable people entered or left it at their own discretion, depending on the economics of their own area. For the elderly, it provided a form of what we would now term sheltered housing.

School history may not be the best basis for making judgments!

As is well known, in workhouses families including husbands and wives were separated: histclo.com/insti/work/work.html

"When a family entered the workhouse, they were separated. Women were at all times kept separate from the men, including their husbands."

That you can even begin to justify workhouses beggars belief. Down here in England the Church wedding service contains the words "Whom God hath joined let no man put asunder." 

Interesting that of all the ills of workhouse practices you identify the affront to the marriage vow as of premier importance. I'm sure that there were many women who weren't so averse to that aspect. Not having to accept daily violent assault, rape and death in childbirth which were present in all levels of society may have been one of the upsides.
As a modern society are we so much better where our addicts, abuse victims , mental health sufferers and homeless are allowed to die on the streets ? Care in the community is great if we actually care.

[alec]

colin - understand your point about the energy bill assistance. I just don't know how much credit voters will give though, as saying 'we're great because it would have been much worse' as your central offer seems weak, when all voters see is a doubling of bills with cuts elsewhere to pay for this.

[leftieliberal]

I am looking forward to the first day of Parliament sitting after the recess and the Opposition motion to reduce the Chancellor of the Exchequer's salary by £1000 (the traditional way of moving a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor - or indeed any Government minister). I would not be confident that he would survive it.

[leftieliberal]

Oct 3, 2022 10:17:48 GMT thylacine said:

Oct 3, 2022 9:01:38 GMT leftieliberal said:

As is well known, in workhouses families including husbands and wives were separated: histclo.com/insti/work/work.html

"When a family entered the workhouse, they were separated. Women were at all times kept separate from the men, including their husbands."

That you can even begin to justify workhouses beggars belief. Down here in England the Church wedding service contains the words "Whom God hath joined let no man put asunder." 

Interesting that of all the ills of workhouse practices you identify the affront to the marriage vow as of premier importance. I'm sure that there were many women who weren't so averse to that aspect. Not having to accept daily violent assault, rape and death in childbirth which were present in all levels of society may have been one of the upsides.
As a modern society are we so much better where our addicts, abuse victims , mental health sufferers and homeless are allowed to die on the streets ? Care in the community is great if we actually care.

I was not saying that care is great now, just that oldnat 's advocacy for workhouses as a solution was disgraceful. He is always ready to complain about England, but in this case he has shown himself to be a "Tartan Tory"; the very people who brought in the workhouses in the first place.

[bardin1]

Oct 3, 2022 10:12:23 GMT alec said:

Confirms my sense that conversations about cuts will keep returning to the bizarre refusal to claw back taxpayer funded profits to the energy sector via a windfall tax -

This budget fiasco has only just begun.

I think scrapping the cap on bankers' bonuses will be the next statute to be toppled

[jayblanc]

Oct 2, 2022 23:47:45 GMT oldnat said:

Anent workhouses

They have received a very bad press - often based on Dicken's account in Oliver Twist (which described a workhouse that preceded the English Poor Law Act of 1834) and Chadwick's determination that workhouses should offer a worse environment than poverty in the community.

Those of us who learned about this at school, will know that it was largely motivated by ratepayers in southern English agricultural counties objecting to "outdoor relief" which topped up the meagre agricultural labourer's wages  (Step forward Gordon Brown!)

Modern historical research, however, has suggested that for many in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, the workhouse was a welcome relief from poverty, and vulnerable people entered or left it at their own discretion, depending on the economics of their own area. For the elderly, it provided a form of what we would now term sheltered housing.

It was a policy of its time, and evolved as appropriate through subsequent times. Whether the current "Speenhamland System" and its planned sanctions on the poorest is better may be a matter of opinion!

School history may not be the best basis for making judgments!

This "Modern Historical Research" sounds exceptionally suspect to me. 

There was no nationally supervised program of Workhouses, they were left up to local parish councils to fund and supervise, and that funding came directly from a 'Poor Rate' tax applied to residents of the Parish. As such, the poorest regions would have the worst workhouses, while the wealthy regions may well have had 'nice' Workhouses you describe.

Further, 'Workhouses' were also combination Orphanages, Hospices and Asylums. Can you imagine being a orphaned child brought up in a Workhouse alongside the dying and disabled and those wracked by untreated mental illnesses. And only receiving what little 'education' the Parish could fund?

The Poor Laws eventually culminated in the 1830s Riots and the 1845 Andover Scandal, where profit taking private interests had taken over the operation of Workhouses to horrific results.

What's terrible is that only piecemeal reforms occurred, and Workhouses persisted until 1905 and the introduction of national insurance! And then many persisted as "Institutions" up until the "Care in the Community" reforms of the 90s. And let's not forget how stringent the opposition to "Care in the Community" was, with claims it would result in moral turpitude and grannies being mugged.

I can't imagine from where this attempt to rehabilitate the idea of the Workhouse comes from, but it is entirely historical revisionism.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 10:23:38 GMT alec said:

colin - understand your point about the energy bill assistance. I just don't know how much credit voters will give though, as saying 'we're great because it would have been much worse' as your central offer seems weak, when all voters see is a doubling of bills with cuts elsewhere to pay for this.

According to Opinium 74% ( 63% net) think its a good idea. In that same Poll Energy costs was top of the "most important issues".

So a mega £bn intervention on the most salient topic , approved of by 70% +.............in a poll with Labour havinging a VI lead of 19%.

I say again-how stupid is that ?

[leftieliberal]

A reminder from Devi Sridhar, if anyone should need reminding, that inequality is bad for health: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/03/britain-mini-budget-paying-with-our-health-stress-illness-food-poverty-cold-homes-financial-chaos

[alec]

colin - It's possible for the action on bills to be seen as positive, as the alternative of no action was much worse, even while the public doesn't feel very happy about the net result.

But I think this is a developing story. The bankers bonuses, the energy sector taxpayer supplied profits - it's all just demonstrating what these Tories are primarily about.

[jimjam]

Colin,

''According to Opinium 74% ( 63% net) think its a good idea. In that same Poll Energy costs was top of the "most important issues"

I, consciously, haven't strayed in to policy discussion for around 3 months so my question is polling not policy related.

I am assuming the 74% (63% net) result is in favour of the price capping measures and doesn't mention how it will be paid for.

Not seen anything recently but when windfall taxes on energy companies has been polled during the summer IIRC there was strong support for that also.

[mandolinist]

Oct 3, 2022 11:11:15 GMT alec said:

colin - It's possible for the action on bills to be seen as positive, as the alternative of no action was much worse, even while the public doesn't feel very happy about the net result.

But I think this is a developing story. The bankers bonuses, the energy sector taxpayer supplied profits - it's all just demonstrating what these Tories are primarily about.

I think the greatest "crime" of the new regime in terms of the Conservative Party is the appalling waste of an electoral asset.  To be dragged, kicking and screaming into a massive support package for energy bills and then to lose the potential bounce in popularity because of crass, ill thought through and divisive ideological tax cuts is political ineptness of the first order. The Party will struggle to forgive her.

[charles]

colin - I think your posts on the factors that spooked the market (lack of OBR, giving advance notice to hedge funds etc) were spot on. So too were your observations on the two proposals that spooked the electorate (45p cut and bankers bonuses, I assume). I also agree that the electorate probably don't care about the market per se and will approve of their energy bills being less awful than they otherwise might be. However, I think you might factor in that they may care about the way the bill is paid for - cuts in services rather than windfall taxes - and they may care about the possible consequences of market spooking (higher mortgage costs, greater difficulties in getting a mortgage, perhaps a house price crash - and then the possible consequences of that - not to memtion the risk to pensions). And then they may see the government as both incompetent and uncaring.

[bardin1]

I agree that Colin's analysis covered it well. I think re the energy capping like the 'vaccination roll out' it will have some purchase (Johnson, for all his faults would have got that message over much better than Liz who scuttled away from the media when she could have fronted it up).

I don't think the Tories, unless the make the situation worse with internal squabbles, will have much problem with the 'where is the money coming from' until their 23 Nv budget. then Labour can of course use the windfall tax to beat them up for any cuts they propose on lower income groups.

I do wish Labour would make more of the need to raise tax thresholds at the lower end (ie personal allowance and basic rate)

[pjw1961]

Oct 3, 2022 11:14:35 GMT jimjam said:

Colin,

''According to Opinium 74% ( 63% net) think its a good idea. In that same Poll Energy costs was top of the "most important issues"

I, consciously, haven't strayed in to policy discussion for around 3 months so my question is polling not policy related.

I am assuming the 74% (63% net) result is in favour of the price capping measures and doesn't mention how it will be paid for.

Not seen anything recently but when windfall taxes on energy companies has been polled during the summer IIRC there was strong support for that also.

Opinium didn't ask that specific question (the windfall tax) this time. 

It is worth adding that although as I noted a lot of individual policies in the budget were popular, Opinium asked a lot of economic questions about the budget, the state of the economy, people's personal finances, the prospect for the next year and Truss/Kwarteng competence and the result were uniformly dismal for the Tories on everything, with mass gloom and Labour leads on every point.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 11:11:15 GMT alec said:

colin - It's possible for the action on bills to be seen as positive, as the alternative of no action was much worse, even while the public doesn't feel very happy about the net result.

But I think this is a developing story. The bankers bonuses, the energy sector taxpayer supplied profits - it's all just demonstrating what these Tories are primarily about.

It is a developing story and always was, because Kwarteng insisted on blurting bits of it out in his Not Really A Budget statement, without waiting  to present the full package. A full package accompanied by  OBR's assessment of its affect on Public Finances and GDP.

Which is why the Markets didn't like it.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 11:14:35 GMT jimjam said:

I am assuming the 74% (63% net) result is in favour of the price capping measures and doesn't mention how it will be paid for.

Yes-a point I have just made in respect of voter reaction.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 11:24:06 GMT charles said:

However, I think you might factor in that they may care about the way the bill is paid for 

I already did- in a post to alec 3 hours ago when I wrote :-


@"And at a stage -where we now are-BEFORE Kwarteng discloses proposed funding sources-all these 7 proposals are prima facie being offered through more borrowing. And I doubt the average householder being offered two years help with utility bills cares much about that.
Clearly when he does complete the package with supply side reforms and funding proposals , IF there are spending cuts which hurt the low paid and vulnerable-that will be a new set of considerations for voters."



On higher mortgage costs, there was ( still is) a narrative for mortgage holders. It is this:- 

Loose Monetary Policy and economic growth supported by it has ended as Central Banks across the developed world , including our own here in uk< fight inflation and raise interest rates. These last 15 years of ultra low interest rates were NOT normal. We are returning to normal interest rates so that double digit inflation does not persist. This will mean higher mortgage payments-more normal mortgage payments.

Kwarteng made no attempt to explain this. He spooked the Gilt market pushing up Gilt rates  even further. Now he will be blamed for all increases in interest rates and if he tries, belatedly to express the narrative outlined above, no one will believe him.

[pjw1961]

By the way, the secret to why the public liked many of the measures in the budget is that they don't much like tax. Another of Opinium's questions was:

                                                                                                     Headline Voting Intention
                                                                                                     Total      Con Lab Lib Dem
Increase taxes and spend more on public services                              27 %    14 % 37 % 28 %

Reduce taxes and spend less on public services                                  19 %    32 % 15 % 29 %

Keep taxes and spending on public services about where they are now 32 %   40 % 31 % 32 %

Don’t know                                                                                      22 %   15 % 17 % 11 %

Note that even Lib Dem voters would (narrowly) rather cut taxes and services than increase both.

[leftieliberal]

And now Martin Fletcher, former Times foreign editor, writing for New Statesman: www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/10/liz-truss-worst-conservative-prime-minister-yet

His last paragraph:
"At the next general election – and I say this as an erstwhile Tory voter – the Conservatives must be swept from office. Not just Truss and Johnson but the entire cast of swivel-eyed loons, the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, David Frost, Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, Andrea Leadsom, Steve Baker, Bill Cash, John Redwood and Mark Francois, who hijacked their party after the Brexit referendum and forced it, with the help of a pernicious Tory press, down a path of destruction that will blight the lives of generations to come."

I just hope that responsible Tory MPs (and there are still some left) don't hesitate to defenestrate Truss and Kwarteng and at least limit the damage that is done before the inevitable General Election, whenever it comes.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 12:18:04 GMT pjw1961 said:

By the way, the secret to why the public liked many of the measures in the budget is that they don't much like tax. Another of Opinium's questions was:

                                                                                                     Headline Voting Intention
                                                                                                     Total      Con Lab Lib Dem
Increase taxes and spend more on public services                              27 %    14 % 37 % 28 %

Reduce taxes and spend less on public services                                  19 %    32 % 15 % 29 %

Keep taxes and spending on public services about where they are now 32 %   40 % 31 % 32 %

Don’t know                                                                                      22 %   15 % 17 % 11 %

Note that even Lib Dem voters would (narrowly) rather cut taxes and services than increase both.

Well spotted !

[crossbat11]

Oct 3, 2022 12:18:04 GMT pjw1961 said:

By the way, the secret to why the public liked many of the measures in the budget is that they don't much like tax. Another of Opinium's questions was:

                                                                                                     Headline Voting Intention
                                                                                                     Total      Con Lab Lib Dem
Increase taxes and spend more on public services                              27 %    14 % 37 % 28 %

Reduce taxes and spend less on public services                                  19 %    32 % 15 % 29 %

Keep taxes and spending on public services about where they are now 32 %   40 % 31 % 32 %

Don’t know                                                                                      22 %   15 % 17 % 11 %

Note that even Lib Dem voters would (narrowly) rather cut taxes and services than increase both.

Another reason why a lot of VI polling sub-question data is often next to worthless. You really need in depth dedicated polling on tax policy to get something remotely useful.

As you say, people don't like paying tax. Well, knock me down with a feather!

[Deleted]

The attached is the BBC talking to “people around the country.”

Bizarrely, given that maybe 20% of the electorate are saying they would actually vote Tory, they seem to have found an amazing amount of Tory voters:

“ Distraction, panic and wrong' - your reactions to U-turn
Our colleagues at Radio 5 Live have been hearing reaction to the government's tax rate U-turn from people around the country.

Daphne in Barrow in Furness was a Conservative Party member but is unsure if she’ll renew her membership.

She believes the U-turn on the 45p tax rate is a “distraction” from “all the other things we’re now not going to be talking about” from the mini-budget.

Carol in Sussex doesn’t think the U-turn “should have happened”.

She believes scrapping the higher tax rate is essential to keep high earners in the UK and also believes removing the cap on bankers bonuses was a sensible move.

Hugh in West Sussex feels the electorate has been “taken for a ride” as this government “was not elected on this raft of policies”.

“Effectively, our economic futures have been swung by a small majority of Conservative Party members,” he says.

Mike in Bristol says all Liz Truss was doing by scrapping the 45p tax rate was putting levels back to where they historically have been.

Before 2009, the tax rate for top earners was 40p, he says, so he believes “all Liz Truss was doing is putting it back to where it had always been”.

He thinks her main problem is failing to effectively explain her policy.

Carol in Derbyshire says she’d rather have “Boris with all his foibles than what we’ve got now”.

“I think we need somebody confident and calm, and [Truss] is panicking.”

——. ————- ———————————————

I rest my case! WTF are they playing at?!?!?!?

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2022 12:21:41 GMT leftieliberal said:

And now Martin Fletcher, former Times foreign editor, writing for New Statesman: www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/10/liz-truss-worst-conservative-prime-minister-yet

His last paragraph:
"At the next general election – and I say this as an erstwhile Tory voter – the Conservatives must be swept from office. Not just Truss and Johnson but the entire cast of swivel-eyed loons, the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, David Frost, Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, Andrea Leadsom, Steve Baker, Bill Cash, John Redwood and Mark Francois, who hijacked their party after the Brexit referendum and forced it, with the help of a pernicious Tory press, down a path of destruction that will blight the lives of generations to come."

I just hope that responsible Tory MPs (and there are still some left) don't hesitate to defenestrate Truss and Kwarteng and at least limit the damage that is done before the inevitable General Election, whenever it comes.

That’s an excellent article. I instinctively agreed with his theory that there should have been a 60% threshold for leaving the EU - but then I thought that, in all probability, that would have made the remain side even more complacent and perhaps even fewer would have bothered voting.

[pjw1961]

Oct 3, 2022 13:01:22 GMT @crofty said:

——. ————- ———————————————

I rest my case! WTF are they playing at?!?!?!?

I think the BBC call it 'balance' Crofty, like when Farage was on Question Time 35 times, averaging 1.8 appearances a year between 2000-19 (a record frequency). 

[neilj]

That's his biggest fear!
What about the 95% of kids who don't go to private school.
What about lost learning during covid.
What about kids going to school hungry.
No, let's worry about the privileged 5% who go to private school

[shevii]

Oct 3, 2022 11:01:35 GMT jayblanc said:

Oct 2, 2022 23:47:45 GMT oldnat said:

And then many persisted as "Institutions" up until the "Care in the Community" reforms of the 90s. And let's not forget how stringent the opposition to "Care in the Community" was, with claims it would result in moral turpitude and grannies being mugged.

Surely the main opposition to "Care in the Community" was that it was a government cost cutting measure that over time has allowed them to reduce support to virtually zero for vulnerable people? 

I'm not saying being in an institution is a good policy but at least they had to take responsibility for a mental health patient. "Care in the community" is often an even worse option for a person's welfare and their families and is slipped through in a way that no-one, whether it be police, doctors or social workers are ultimately tasked or accountable for ensuring someone with mental health is getting the right level of support.  A quick Google says 80% of people sleeping rough have mental health problems. Meanwhile the family who have to deal with the care in the community are suffering all sorts of stress as a result.  One department might refer someone to another department and the other department might refer back and all the time these departments are under cost pressures and/or aware that that the funding isn't there anyway even if they bust a gut for someone.

Not disagreeing that a fully funded care in the community programme would not be a better option than an institution but the reality is that care in the community as it is being practised is arguably worse.