16-JUL 2023 : LAB: 46% / CON: 26% / LDEM: 11% / REF: 6%

[John Chanin]

Jul 18, 2023 23:52:53 GMT ptarmigan said:

Bewildered that some seem to have swallowed the fiscal responsibility stuff on the 2 child benefits cap. Reversing it would reportedly cost £1.3bn - that's an absolute drop in the ocean. If Labour can't commit to something like that they'll not commit to anything meaningful at all. Just feels like the sort of policy that played well with their beloved focus groups.

Which appear to consist solely of aging northern bigots.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 19, 2023 7:41:55 GMT colin said:

Jul 19, 2023 0:13:22 GMT mercian said:

To be fair, the only people objecting will be those with more than two kids, such as Boris and Rees-Mogg and also virtue-signallers. Most voters will not have more than two kids so it's a winner.

60 % public approval I think.

With a bit of a partisan divide but even LAB agree the two-child benefits limit should be kept. Although it is IMO a bit disappointed Starmer is trying to blame lack of money (for which he could easily raise some taxes if he wanted to), rather than pointing out the 'lower population growth' reasons why HMG should not be encouraging large families. 

[steve]

Misleading question.
There are alternatives to keeping or scrapping raising the cap so it covers three children for example.

[expatr]

Jul 19, 2023 7:37:25 GMT eor said:

Thanks expatr - I'd noticed the Guardian being pricked into action last night but hasn't seen the other piece.

I do still think the shouts of bias and hypocrisy are missing a pretty large elephant here.

I mean outside of this site, how many people could you have a conversation with about Dan Wootton without having to first tell them who he is? And likewise how many people do you know or work with who wouldn't immediately know who Philip Schofield and Huw Edwards are?

Ignoring that factor whilst interpreting the respective volume of media coverage seems bizarre to me.

Fair point eor.  I was really more concerned about the gravity of the offences - given what we currently know than how the papers are treating it.  

FWIW In my view Schofield - sackably bad, Edwards - clearly not behaviour  to be proud of (although given his MH issues might have been a manic phase of bi-polar?)but really none of anyone else's business bar Mrs Edwards, Wooton Shofieldianly disgraceful with added hypocrisy)

[crossbat11]

moby

It would appear that Starmer is heading into Blair territory. Despised in equal measure by the Tories and the Labour Left. The Tories hated him because he beat them, and there is no worse crime for a Labour leader to commit in Tory demonology than that ( they quite liked cuddly losers like Foot, Kinnock, Milliband and Corbyn) and the Left hated him for his centrist and Blue Labour ways.

Starmer is clearly seen as a threat to Tory power so the vitriol is stepping up various notches now. Trevor's one use on this forum is as a sort of weathervane for Tory attack lines. Any tool with which to beat Starmer will do, including tropes borrowed from far Left media and twittersphere habitats. Expect much more of this. He's so right wing now even us Tories are begging him to tack left so they can support him when he gets into power.

This drivel can and should be dismissed as partisan warfare, and Starmer is probably laughing it off as anticipated incoming fire. He may even have been disappointed not to have seen such clear evidence of a rattled Tory Party staring down the barrel of defeat.

The attack from his left flank is probably more worrying and potentially damaging for him. This is why the Tories are poking and prodding it. I think it has the capacity to sap confidence and undermine his attempt to get Labour back into power.

Just imagine you were Starmer and you had dragged a demoralised party back from the wreckage of its worst electoral defeat for over 80 years and put it within sight of an electoral victory within four years of becoming leader. A party that has enjoyed 15-20% poll leads for well over a year now.

And yet to be told by members and would-be supporters of the party you lead that you were a liar and a sell out and more right wing than this current Tory Government.

You'd think it was a funny old world and you were leading a strange old party wouldn't you?

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2023 7:55:01 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 19, 2023 7:41:55 GMT colin said:

 Although it is IMO a bit disappointed Starmer is trying to blame lack of money (for which he could easily raise some taxes if he wanted to), rather than pointing out the 'lower population growth' reasons why HMG should not be encouraging large families. 

Agreed.  Though lefties balk somewhat at population size control-it has certain connotations. Does leave them exposed to the accusation that all that climate change angst & green stuff is just a desire to carry on consuming.

 
I rather enjoyed some of the  quotes from Blair's Future of Britain schmoozefest.

This in partic.:-

"Its wrong to define radical simply by the amount of money you're prepared to commit "

Keir Starmer

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 19, 2023 0:19:34 GMT eor said:

Jul 18, 2023 12:26:51 GMT Mark said:

Re-Sunak & university courses.

Populist and wrong....

Mark - politicians trying to say which courses "count" and which don't is almost always a recipe for pandering nonsense. 

At the same time, Sunak is probably trying to tap into something significant, according to his polling wonks anyway, that whilst university education is widely regarded as valuable, the massive expansion that took place during/after the time you and I were there is perceived more negatively. Crudely put, that Blair's drive for 50% mostly resulted in a lot of middle-class kids who weren't bright enough to get in before now getting a few years respite from having to join the real world after school. 

And I think that's where the inevitable snide course references by journalists come in - it's not that any course can't be valuable for the right students, or indeed for all students that take it - Film Studies at my university was a damn sight more rigorous and demanding than English Literature or History. But the appeal of this coverage is that a lot of people reading it will be able to think of a child of friends or relatives who spent three years at university with no obvious bearing or impact on what they're doing now.

If anyone has seen specific polling then can they post. Here is FT link explained the rationale:

- Universities in England offering courses with poor employment prospects and high student dropout rates will be subjected to stricter regulatory controls
- Figures from the OfS show almost 30 per cent of students do not progress into highly skilled jobs or further study 15 months after graduating.
- The Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, also estimates one in five graduates would be better off financially if they had not gone to university

www.ft.com/content/b287c857-a4e0-4cb1-ab62-eebf91bf20bd

"Too many young people are being sold a false dream and end up doing a poor quality course at the taxpayers’ expense that doesn’t offer the prospect of a decent job at the end of it.”

NB It is quite possible to do a degree that does offers prospect of a good job outside of the specific course but some courses with hardly any hours of teaching are ripping off the student and future taxpayers - hence the long overdue need to crack down on 'graduate farms'.  

[Deleted]

"Goods now crossing Channel at pre-Brexit speed, says tunnel chief
Managing director of Eurotunnel hails Border Pass technology that allows hauliers to clear customs before arrival at Dover.
Yann Leriche, the managing director of Eurotunnel, said that more than €111 million had been spent on changes at the terminals and on new “Border Pass” technology that allows hauliers to clear customs before arriving at the port.

It also removes the need for drivers of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) to produce up to 100 individual pieces of customs paperwork at the tunnel terminals. About 25 per cent of UK-EU trade passes through the tunnel."

TIMES

[bendo]

Jul 19, 2023 5:49:01 GMT neilj said:

How much has this stunt cost us,seems to me basic planning is to find out where you would put the boat first
Incompetence thy name is tory

'Two giant cruise ships set to house 1,000 asylum seekers were unable to find anywhere to dock and have been returned to their owners, a senior source has told Sky News.

It seems the official policy is working. Stop the boats. Gov must be happy with that surely.

[shevii]

Jul 18, 2023 23:52:53 GMT ptarmigan said:

Bewildered that some seem to have swallowed the fiscal responsibility stuff on the 2 child benefits cap. Reversing it would reportedly cost £1.3bn - that's an absolute drop in the ocean. If Labour can't commit to something like that they'll not commit to anything meaningful at all. Just feels like the sort of policy that played well with their beloved focus groups.

Given my population control views I'm less instinctively bothered by this particular policy but also recognise that child poverty is something we cannot allow to happen so however you do it you need to be supporting 3rd to 20th children. Also, without having looked at the research, some are saying this makes no difference to whether people have more than two children or not, so it's an ineffective policy as well as being floated that this costs the state more money in other ways.

The problem with this "there is no money left" line is that you can create money and you also make your spending choices.  CGT equalised with Income Tax raises £16 billion and is more than fair- if anything unearned income should be at a higher rate. Keeping nuclear weapons is an off the scale cost.  The choices an incoming Labour government can make are very much limited but they still have choices and currently they are just saying "no money left" and that's it.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 19, 2023 8:07:45 GMT colin said:

Jul 19, 2023 7:55:01 GMT Mr Poppy said:

 Although it is IMO a bit disappointed Starmer is trying to blame lack of money (for which he could easily raise some taxes if he wanted to), rather than pointing out the 'lower population growth' reasons why HMG should not be encouraging large families. 

Agreed.  (1) Though lefties balk somewhat at population size control-it has certain connotations. Does leave them exposed to the accusation that all that climate change angst & green stuff is just a desire to carry on consuming.

 
I rather enjoyed some of the  quotes from Blair's Future of Britain schmoozefest.

This in partic.:-

(2) "Its wrong to define radical simply by the amount of money you're prepared to commit "

1. A few examples on UKPR2 of 'Green-Lefties' that appreciate the need to lower population growth but I did note the partisan split in the polling 

2. They are pushing the 'Reform not Spend'* approach - like we haven't tried that before?!?

Whilst I was against most of Corbyn's "radical" approach and Truss was wrong on her timing and stupid not to realise that then we do need some changes. Sadly I expect LAB will just change the colour of the sticking plasters but wonder if at some point LAB's lack of ambition will 'cut-thru' all the immediate concerns and the high loyalty of LAB'19 voters will start to slide.

Current expectations of a change of colour on the deckchairs:

* "Labour will rebuild broken Britain with big reforms, not big spending. That’s a promise"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/15/labour-approach-britain-failed-tory-rebuild

[Deleted]

"Starmer nonetheless told his shadow cabinet that his plans were “built on the rock of secure and responsible economics”, warning that voters would lose trust if the party wavered.
“Tough choices give us the platform and the permission to have a bold reforming Labour government,” he argued, citing Liz Truss as a cautionary tale of the risks of unfunded commitments."

Times-Starmer at Blair's mini Davos.

This does indicate that KS has understood the real message from Truss/Kwarteng.

ie-in the post QE era , with no Buyer of First Resort , UK Gov is exposed to market sentiment when flogging its Gilts/Debt.

[crossbat11]

expatr

The only caveat I'd apply to the various scandals enveloping the media personalities you mention is that only in Schofield's case can we be fairly certain of the facts about what he did. He himself has more or less confessed to them and resigned.

In the case of Edwards and Wootton, aren't we still in the trial by tabloid stage where facts remain both disputed and unproven? In Edwards case he himself has made no comment about the allegations, some already denied by interested parties and Wootton has flatly denied them.

Probably best to await the findings of the internal investigations into the allegations before reaching judgement.

[steve]

crossbat11
The Labour party are past masters at forming an inward looking circular firing squad.

I still have affection for my old party , shame it has less for itself.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2023 8:18:38 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 19, 2023 8:07:45 GMT colin said:

Agreed.  (1) Though lefties balk somewhat at population size control-it has certain connotations. Does leave them exposed to the accusation that all that climate change angst & green stuff is just a desire to carry on consuming.

 
I rather enjoyed some of the  quotes from Blair's Future of Britain schmoozefest.

This in partic.:-

(2) "Its wrong to define radical simply by the amount of money you're prepared to commit "

1. A few examples on UKPR2 of 'Green-Lefties' that appreciate the need to lower population growth but I did note the partisan split in the polling 

2. They are pushing the 'Reform not Spend'* approach - like we haven't tried that before?!?

Whilst I was against most of Corbyn's "radical" approach and Truss was wrong on her timing and stupid not to realise that then we do need some changes. Sadly I expect LAB will just change the colour of the sticking plasters but wonder if at some point LAB's lack of ambition will 'cut-thru' all the immediate concerns and the high loyalty of LAB'19 voters will start to slide.

Current expectations of a change of colour on the deckchairs:

* "Labour will rebuild broken Britain with big reforms, not big spending. That’s a promise"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/15/labour-approach-britain-failed-tory-rebuild

Not a ringing endorsement or expression of hope is it ?

But-what does that say about Cons ?

On the Starmer quote-I was just smiling at the Blair Koolaid he is drinking. It will drive some on the left to self immolation  !

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 19, 2023 8:20:55 GMT colin said:

"Starmer nonetheless told his shadow cabinet that his plans were “built on the rock of secure and responsible economics”, warning that voters would lose trust if the party wavered.
“Tough choices give us the platform and the permission to have a bold reforming Labour government,” he argued, citing Liz Truss as a cautionary tale of the risks of unfunded commitments."

Times-Starmer at Blair's mini Davos.

This does indicate that KS has understood the real message from Truss/Kwarteng.

ie-in the post QE era , with no Buyer of First Resort , UK Gov is exposed to market sentiment when flogging its Gilts/Debt.

We can't just "create money" (ie we're not about to repeat the Magic Money Tree experiment with Modern Monetary Theory, at least not when inflation is Public Enemy #1) but shevii makes some valid points about ability to raise some taxes and reallocate some forms of spending (YG do ask those kinds of polling questions).

Truss/Kwarteng wanted to massively over-do it at totally the wrong time using an approach that hasn't worked at solving the underlying problems in the past. 

The 'radical' could come from reforms but not the 'tinkering with NHS' kind of stuff that Streeting is proposing. I'd also wonder if the gilt market would baulk at a tweak of the fiscal 'rules' to allow increased investment (eg in insulating buildings that the state pays the heating bills for - thereby lowering the future cost to taxpayers as well as the environmental cost and reliance in imported energy)?

The reforms to Pension/Insurance funds (made possibly by Brexit) will help 'crowd-in' more private sector in a non-PFI manner but we need a lot more ambition than that from CON who also seem too timid to want to tackle the underlying problems in our economy in case it upsets voters who consider NHS to be our 'precious' or think tackling the climate emergency can wait. 

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2023 8:34:24 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 19, 2023 8:20:55 GMT colin said:

"Starmer nonetheless told his shadow cabinet that his plans were “built on the rock of secure and responsible economics”, warning that voters would lose trust if the party wavered.
“Tough choices give us the platform and the permission to have a bold reforming Labour government,” he argued, citing Liz Truss as a cautionary tale of the risks of unfunded commitments."

Times-Starmer at Blair's mini Davos.

This does indicate that KS has understood the real message from Truss/Kwarteng.

ie-in the post QE era , with no Buyer of First Resort , UK Gov is exposed to market sentiment when flogging its Gilts/Debt.

We can't just "create money" (ie we're not about to repeat the Magic Money Tree experiment with Modern Monetary Theory, at least not when inflation is Public Enemy #1) but shevii makes some valid points about ability to raise some taxes and reallocate some forms of spending (YG do ask those kinds of polling questions).

Truss/Kwarteng wanted to massively over-do it at totally the wrong time using an approach that hasn't worked at solving the underlying problems in the past. 

The 'radical' could come from reforms but not the 'tinkering with NHS' kind of stuff that Streeting is proposing. I'd also wonder if the gilt market would baulk at a tweak of the fiscal 'rules' to allow increased investment (eg in insulating buildings that the state pays the heating bills for - thereby lowering the future cost to taxpayers as well as the environmental cost and reliance in imported energy)?

The reforms to Pension/Insurance funds (made possibly by Brexit) will help 'crowd-in' more private sector in a non-PFI manner but we need a lot more ambition than that from CON who also seem too timid to want to tackle the underlying problems in our economy in case it upsets voters who consider NHS to be our 'precious' or think tackling the climate emergency can wait. 

Yes I agree with shevii   that choices include tax policy.

[somerjohn]

Steve: "There are alternatives to keeping or scrapping raising the cap so it covers three children for example."

Another possibility would be to scrap the two-child limit, and also the precipitous clawback that operates when either of a couple earns between £50k and £60k (if you both earn £49,999pa you keep all your child benefit; if one earns £60k and the other nothing, you lose it all).

How to make that affordable? Make all child benefit payments count towards earnings for income tax purposes. Result: a far simpler, more progressive* and more equitable way of limiting total child benefit receipts.

*Edit: I should add that I'm using 'progressive' in the taxation sense.

[crossbat11]

Jul 19, 2023 8:24:09 GMT steve said:

crossbat11
The Labour party are past masters at forming an inward looking circular firing squad.

I still have affection for my old party , shame it has less for itself.

Indeed so. The only saving grace is that the guns are usually loaded with blanks! They make a loud bang when fired but carry no capacity to wound or kill. Everybody still standing after guns discharged. A sort of pointless charade really. A source of comedy, little else.

My considered view on all this is that the sound and fury is exceeding the political import. Starmer has set his course and his train has left the station. Carriages full and all those absent passengers either alighted some stations ago or, more likely, never boarded.

I think next stop is the general election. The driver and crew seem determined to stay the course and the passengers determined to see the journey through too. Opinion polls suggest most of the passengers jumped on the train a long time ago. Possible derailments aplenty ahead but the train seems sturdy enough to survive them.

I'm on board because it's the only train going vaguely in the right direction for me. I can't see another due, nor any alternative routes.

Talking to my fellow passengers, most are surprisingly happy with the driver, the crew and the direction the train is travelling. A fair few people on bridges chucking bricks down as we pass through, but they seem to bounce off.

My message to the driver is Keep Calm and Carry on. The train is getting there, I think

[expatr]

Jul 19, 2023 8:24:06 GMT crossbat11 said:

expatr

The only caveat I'd apply to the various scandals enveloping the media personalities you mention is that only in Schofield's case can we be fairly certain of the facts about what he did. He himself has more or less confessed to them and resigned.

In the case of Edwards and Wootton, aren't we still in the trial by tabloid stage where facts remain both disputed and unproven? In Edwards case he himself has made no comment about the allegations, some already denied by interested parties and Wootton has flatly denied them.

Probably best to await the findings of the internal investigations into the allegations before reaching judgement.

@crossbat

Very fair and wise - Wooton might unravel just as much as Edwards

He is however someone who has built his career on dishing it out (his barely disguised misogyny against Jacinda was picked up on a lot down here) completely unlike the bland Edwards - so I will certainly admit that I'm recognising a bit of karma here

[neilj]

Labour are held to a much higher bar than tories when it comes to spending commitments

For example the tories has recently agreed to a pay deal for large parts of the public sector
Their funding of it doesn't add up. Bearing in this mind this will be an ongoing commitment, to say it will be partly funded by a one year underspend is disingenuous at best
They also say it will be part funded by increasing visa charges. Again I thought their objective was to reduce immigration, so how will that work going forward
But even with those two funding possibilities for this year alone that will not provide enough money to meet the pay rises
They make the point there will be no cuts in services, so where's the money coming from and why don't they get the same scrutiny Labour does?

[steve]

Stopped the boats.

youtu.be/KJy8N1oXN3E

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 19, 2023 8:24:34 GMT colin said:

Jul 19, 2023 8:18:38 GMT Mr Poppy said:

1. A few examples on UKPR2 of 'Green-Lefties' that appreciate the need to lower population growth but I did note the partisan split in the polling 

2. They are pushing the 'Reform not Spend'* approach - like we haven't tried that before?!?

Whilst I was against most of Corbyn's "radical" approach and Truss was wrong on her timing and stupid not to realise that then we do need some changes. Sadly I expect LAB will just change the colour of the sticking plasters but wonder if at some point LAB's lack of ambition will 'cut-thru' all the immediate concerns and the high loyalty of LAB'19 voters will start to slide.

Current expectations of a change of colour on the deckchairs:



* "Labour will rebuild broken Britain with big reforms, not big spending. That’s a promise"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/15/labour-approach-britain-failed-tory-rebuild

Not a ringing endorsement or expression of hope is it ?

But-what does that say about Cons ?

On the Starmer quote-I was just smiling at the Blair Koolaid he is drinking. It will drive some on the left to self immolation  !

Well I wouldn’t go that far myself Col., but I have had another coffee though! While it can obviously be a bit traumatising to see Blairites trying to out-Tory the Tories again, it is hardly surprising, and I suspect it isn’t for the longer term. As the cushy jobs that sustained Blairism get casualised and eliminated (partly by the globalists they are in cahoots with, partly by the problem-solvers escaping their shackles), I suspect they will be discovering the virtues of something a bit more socialist. Besides, the cricket is about to start…

[neilj]

Jul 19, 2023 8:56:04 GMT expatr said:

Jul 19, 2023 8:24:06 GMT crossbat11 said:

expatr

The only caveat I'd apply to the various scandals enveloping the media personalities you mention is that only in Schofield's case can we be fairly certain of the facts about what he did. He himself has more or less confessed to them and resigned.

In the case of Edwards and Wootton, aren't we still in the trial by tabloid stage where facts remain both disputed and unproven? In Edwards case he himself has made no comment about the allegations, some already denied by interested parties and Wootton has flatly denied them.

Probably best to await the findings of the internal investigations into the allegations before reaching judgement.

@crossbat

Very fair and wise - Wooton might unravel just as much as Edwards

He is however someone who has built his career on dishing it out (his barely disguised misogyny against Jacinda was picked up on a lot down here) completely unlike the bland Edwards - so I will certainly admit that I'm recognising a bit of karma here

Agree he and GB News were very critical of the BBC and Huw Edwards, their sanctimonious bleating is coming back to bite them on the ass

[eor]

Talking of elephants, taking our 20 month old to the zoo for the first time. Think it's going to be quite an experience!

[somerjohn]

While the comparison between UK inflation for June at 7.9% and eurozone at 5.5% has been highlighted, what I don't think has been noted is how much higher inflation is in the EU countries that don't use the euro. I make the average there 9.7%, with Denmark, whose currency is locked to the euro, the only outlier at 2.4%.

I make the point because people in the UK, and on this board, so often repeat the 'thank god we didn't join the euro' trope.

I wonder what inflation would be like today in Spain if it still used the peseta (currently 1.6%)? Or in a Drachma-retaining Greece (now 2.8%)?

[neilj]

Jul 19, 2023 7:58:08 GMT steve said:

Misleading question.
There are alternatives to keeping or scrapping raising the cap so it covers three children for example.

I have seen this question before, for me it is a text book case of a poorly worded polling question
On first reading it I took abolish it to mean there would be no benefits at all. If a question needs a little more thought to work out what it says, then it's not a good polling question.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2023 9:03:35 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jul 19, 2023 8:24:34 GMT colin said:

 While it can obviously be a bit traumatising to see Blairites trying to out-Tory the Tories again, it is hardly surprising, and I suspect it isn’t for the longer term. As the cushy jobs that sustained Blairism get casualised and eliminated (partly by the globalists they are in cahoots with, partly by the problem-solvers escaping their shackles),

I love stuff like this. 

Its what makes the Labour Party so unelectable.

.....which Starmer understands I think. 

[graham]

Jul 19, 2023 5:41:43 GMT neilj said:

Jul 18, 2023 22:34:26 GMT graham said:

But if their endorsement was delayed until close of nominations - a month before Polling Day - Starmer would be trapped. It would be too late to deselect those candidates or to choose new replacements. What could Starmer do about it under such circomstances? It would also create an almighty row - and potential split right at the outset of the official election campaign. Effectively the Campaign group could have him over a barrel.

In those circumstances Starmer/Labour would have no choice but to expel them. They would, probably quite rightly, see much bigger damage being done to Labour through out the country in electoral terms if they didn't. Rightly or wrongly Corbyn is seen as toxic by many of the people Labour want to vote for them

On the other hand Starmer showing himself a 'tough' leader in dealing with it would probably play quite well. If he doesn't he would be seen as weak as Sunak, who he definitely wouldn't want to be compared with

Personally can't see the Campaign group going for it precisely because of that

If he expelled them , Starmer would effectively be throwing away circa 30 seats which could well be enough to push Labour below 300. Such MPs would not feel obliged to support him on a Kings Speech - indeed might be minded to vote him down. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold.'

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 19, 2023 9:36:44 GMT colin said:

Jul 19, 2023 9:03:35 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

 While it can obviously be a bit traumatising to see Blairites trying to out-Tory the Tories again, it is hardly surprising, and I suspect it isn’t for the longer term. As the cushy jobs that sustained Blairism get casualised and eliminated (partly by the globalists they are in cahoots with, partly by the problem-solvers escaping their shackles),

I love stuff like this. 

Its what makes the Labour Party so unelectable.

.....which Starmer understands I think. 

Well I wouldn’t throw a party just yet Col., because I’m not a Labour supporter. Just not very tribal, I’m afraid. And similar pressures on Tories will likely force them to the left too, as Johnson vaguely understood and Sunak seems not to. Though he’s probably already had to do more than he would like! Furlough and energy subsidies - what would Thatch think?! Besides, there is still a chance Starmer is doing a reverse ferret, although it’s probably about as reliable as Bazball…