Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

Beeb... I'm surprised you're sending your kids to Catholic school given the anti-Catholic sentiments you've expressed over the years.

[Barrister]

Beeb... I'm surprised you're sending your kids to Catholic school given the anti-Catholic sentiments you've expressed over the years.

I think when I've referred to the "Red Devil of Rome" or the like I thought it was fairly obvious I was in a typical Languish trolling/in-jest kind of way.  I mean I'm not a Catholic and don't believe in certain bits of Catholic teachings, but they certainly try to impart a strong moral component as part of their education.

As well given how Catholic schools are funded by government and thus regulated by government you have a much better guarantee of a quality education then if you went with an independent protestant school.

Remember - I am a graduate of a Jesuit-run high school.     Heck for my first couple of years I was affiliated with the Catholic college at university.

Tim is going to this particular school because it has a hockey component to his education - but last year he went to a different catholic school with no hockey component.  My middle guy starts at the same school next year (and for the same reason - hockey).  We've told our youngest he's going to go there as well - but they have a STEM program he's interested in.

[Jacob]

Fair enough

[PJL]

As well given how Catholic schools are funded by government and thus regulated by government you have a much better guarantee of a quality education then if you went with an independent protestant school.

Sounds like you're a socialist then. Otherwise, surely the free market would give your children a better choice of academic educational achievements.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps because it was the first election campaign where I was old enough to really understand what was happening but I often go back to the famous 1988 Free Trade election in Canada.

Mulroney's PCs weren't necessarily very popular even after their landslide victory in 1984, and often times were behind in the polls.  Mulroney however came in with a bold new policy - free trade with the US.  The Liberal Senate was blocking passage of free trade so he called an election around that single issue - and it worked.  Mulroney was re-elected.

But you'll note the difference here - this was an actual bill that they were actually trying to pass.

Yeah - and I think that sounds like 2019. The government (under May and Johnson) couldn't pass its Brexit deal. Parliament had sat all night and voted on something like 10 different alternatives (the "meaningful votes") and could not form a majority around any of those options. So we end up going into an election and basically asking voters to break the deadlock.

That results in the biggest Tory majority since 1987 (Corbyn's unpopularity also plays a role here but, I've mentioned before, Johnson comes in with the lowest ever approval ratings of a new PM). But there is no issue like that for Sunak and, fundamentally, the public aren't stupid. They understand the difference between a hung parliament where you can't get anything done (or, for example, the Lords blocking something) v a government with a strong majority that has simply failed to do anything. I think you can run against Parliament from a position of power like that, but not in this case

So this policy and, I suspect everything else Sunak is trying to do right now, is purely defensive.

I can't help but add - what happened after Canada's election in 1988?

I think you can run on a "Help us form a strong opposition" - but you probably need to wait a week or two before you start acknowledging you're going to lose.  It is though an argument you can use to get your supporter to actually go out to the polls and not stay home (which they might otherwise do if you're losing).  It could presumably be useful to bring Reform supporters "back home".

Maybe - I still think it's a really difficult message for a sitting PM to basically admit defeat during an election campaign. Every event would just be journalists shouting "are you going to lose/have you given up Prime Minster?" And I can't help but feel it would have an impact on morale of activists.

As I say I'm very dubious on Reform supporters because they consistently underperform in real votes (especially as Farage has said he's not standing and will be focusing on the US because he'd lose and that's where the money is) - but I think in principle the polls should tighten. I think it's less Reform supporters and more "don't knows" because Labour's polling about 45% right now so if you're a "don't know" at this stage, my guess is you're probably a 2019 Tory voter who is fundamentally going to stay as a Tory voter (basically I think if Labour's on 45% they've probably won about as many swing voters from the Tories as they're realistically likely to).

But I think that Sunak's going for not having a historic defeat (below 30% of the vote) and trying to save the party. I'm reminded of 1997, the first election I remember (and campaigned in as my dad volunteered to deliver leaflets and then paid me to do it instead ) and was aware of (and allowed to stay up for to watch the results - "because this is history"). The Tories lost about 180 seats in the end so it took until about 3 hours into the count before they'd actually won two seats - and the Tory party chairman Cecil Parkinson was asked his response to that and said "well at least we know we can have a leadership election". I think that's about where we are.

[Josquius]

I guess a way to explain these vanishing blukippers is that ultra conservatives are evil, not stupid.
They are well aware of the concepts of tactical voting and how this is playing out in their area.

[Sheilbh]

A lot of them have just gone back to Labour where they started.

Although on this I find it quite funny that Reform now have a more attractive offer for young voters than the Tories

Reform UK
@reformparty_uk
If you have a student loan, you're paying 8% interest on that debt.

Reform UK will abolish that, and give you £3000 a year back.

This will give young people a better chance in life.

The Tories have had young people (very admirably) locked down to save the lives of the elderly, they've tripled tuition fees, no-one under 40 can afford a house, they have to stay in school and do maths until 18, they can't have a fag and now they're going to be conscripted And yet Sunak goes on daytime TV and gets asked "why do you hate pensioners?" Perhaps basing the parties entire vote on the least grateful and most suspicious voters in the country.

Separately - this is falling (which you'd expect with an immediate Hong Kong and Ukraine surge) but first immigration estimates are in and the impact of the post-Brexit rules is really pretty extraordinary and big (I think this means that the UK, per capita and net, has the highest immigration rate in Europe):


That's total so net is lower - and it looks like emigration is starting to creep up (but generally hovers around 500k per year) which makes sense as there's been a very big increase in international students who can stay for a year or two to work but also often leave:


In general the increase have been form India, China and Nigeria - which I imagine are major sources of immigrants in many countries because they're massive

[Josquius]

On international students - I'm seeing lots of articles lately of Nigerian students in the UK really suffering lately with their currency collapsing in value (though checking exchange rates this was a while ago?) and making them late on repayments with instant deportation proceedings coming.

[Barrister]

I guess a way to explain these vanishing blukippers is that ultra conservatives are evil, not stupid.
They are well aware of the concepts of tactical voting and how this is playing out in their area.

I am really not surprised that is you're conclusion.

Jos - you are allowed to be a total partisan.  I'm not saying what you can or can't say online.

But if you want to be a more serious thinker about politics, it's usually best to try and put yourself in the shoes of people you oppose, and why they think they way they do (and vote the way they do).  Hint: it's almost never because they're "evil".

Like, I struggle why so many people in the US support Trump - but I don't think MAGA-heads are "evil".  They're just locked into a media eco-system that only confirms their own biases - plus there's some transgressive fun in voting for a character like Trump.

[Barrister]

Perhaps because it was the first election campaign where I was old enough to really understand what was happening but I often go back to the famous 1988 Free Trade election in Canada.

Mulroney's PCs weren't necessarily very popular even after their landslide victory in 1984, and often times were behind in the polls.  Mulroney however came in with a bold new policy - free trade with the US.  The Liberal Senate was blocking passage of free trade so he called an election around that single issue - and it worked.  Mulroney was re-elected.

But you'll note the difference here - this was an actual bill that they were actually trying to pass.

Yeah - and I think that sounds like 2019. The government (under May and Johnson) couldn't pass its Brexit deal. Parliament had sat all night and voted on something like 10 different alternatives (the "meaningful votes") and could not form a majority around any of those options. So we end up going into an election and basically asking voters to break the deadlock.

That results in the biggest Tory majority since 1987 (Corbyn's unpopularity also plays a role here but, I've mentioned before, Johnson comes in with the lowest ever approval ratings of a new PM). But there is no issue like that for Sunak and, fundamentally, the public aren't stupid. They understand the difference between a hung parliament where you can't get anything done (or, for example, the Lords blocking something) v a government with a strong majority that has simply failed to do anything. I think you can run against Parliament from a position of power like that, but not in this case

So this policy and, I suspect everything else Sunak is trying to do right now, is purely defensive.

I can't help but add - what happened after Canada's election in 1988?

I think that's a very good comparison - I should have thought of that.

And yes - in '88 Mulroney wasn't personally popular but fought through an issue-based election.  By 1993 he still wasn't personally popular (in fact he had resigned), there was a "new" Tory government but it hadn't done much of anything, and it cratered.

The point was just more basic - if you're going to try and run on an issues-based platform (as opposed to running on your record) you need to have done something about that issue in government.  Maybe you present a budget with that item in it.  Or you've already called the Royal Commission and have it's report that you want to act on.  Just something.

I think you can run on a "Help us form a strong opposition" - but you probably need to wait a week or two before you start acknowledging you're going to lose.  It is though an argument you can use to get your supporter to actually go out to the polls and not stay home (which they might otherwise do if you're losing).  It could presumably be useful to bring Reform supporters "back home".

Maybe - I still think it's a really difficult message for a sitting PM to basically admit defeat during an election campaign. Every event would just be journalists shouting "are you going to lose/have you given up Prime Minster?" And I can't help but feel it would have an impact on morale of activists.

As I say I'm very dubious on Reform supporters because they consistently underperform in real votes (especially as Farage has said he's not standing and will be focusing on the US because he'd lose and that's where the money is) - but I think in principle the polls should tighten. I think it's less Reform supporters and more "don't knows" because Labour's polling about 45% right now so if you're a "don't know" at this stage, my guess is you're probably a 2019 Tory voter who is fundamentally going to stay as a Tory voter (basically I think if Labour's on 45% they've probably won about as many swing voters from the Tories as they're realistically likely to).

But I think that Sunak's going for not having a historic defeat (below 30% of the vote) and trying to save the party. I'm reminded of 1997, the first election I remember (and campaigned in as my dad volunteered to deliver leaflets and then paid me to do it instead ) and was aware of (and allowed to stay up for to watch the results - "because this is history"). The Tories lost about 180 seats in the end so it took until about 3 hours into the count before they'd actually won two seats - and the Tory party chairman Cecil Parkinson was asked his response to that and said "well at least we know we can have a leadership election". I think that's about where we are.

But compared to what.  If you keep insisting you're going to win the media is just going to keep asking you about running 20 points behind Labour.  Your activists aren't dumb either - then also know you're running 20 points behind.  Running to form a "strong opposition" gives at least some kind of motivation to keep fighting.

[Barrister]

As well given how Catholic schools are funded by government and thus regulated by government you have a much better guarantee of a quality education then if you went with an independent protestant school.

Sounds like you're a socialist then. Otherwise, surely the free market would give your children a better choice of academic educational achievements.

See my post in TBR OTT about our education system.   

I'm no Libertarian who wants no government involvement whatsoever.  The problem with the free market is it is better at giving people what they think they want, not what's best for them.  The problem with pure socialism is it gives people what the government wants them to have, not what's necessarily best for them either.

When it comes to private schools, at least in Canada, most of the ones that exist are pretty hard-core evangelical protestant schools.  And I mean I'd consider myself an evangelical, but I still want my kids to be taught about evolution and sex education.

[Sheilbh]

And yes - in '88 Mulroney wasn't personally popular but fought through an issue-based election.  By 1993 he still wasn't personally popular (in fact he had resigned), there was a "new" Tory government but it hadn't done much of anything, and it cratered.

The point was just more basic - if you're going to try and run on an issues-based platform (as opposed to running on your record) you need to have done something about that issue in government.  Maybe you present a budget with that item in it.  Or you've already called the Royal Commission and have it's report that you want to act on.  Just something.

Totally agree and I think fundamentally after five years in power with your biggest majority in 30 years - you kind of need to run on your record (obviously still presenting new policies for the next five years). For some reason the government's not really doing that

But compared to what.  If you keep insisting you're going to win the media is just going to keep asking you about running 20 points behind Labour.  Your activists aren't dumb either - then also know you're running 20 points behind.  Running to form a "strong opposition" gives at least some kind of motivation to keep fighting.

Fair point - and I think this is the fundamental issue for the Tories. There's no good options

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally polling on the national service idea:


But lots of people circulating Blair on the problem with "popular policies", like Corbyn's made up of lots of policies that polled very well. I quibble with some specifics in his example but totally agree with the point:

It would be odd if they really liked them, given that we lost. I've never quite got this one – they really liked our policies; they really wanted them; they really hated the Tory policies; and – I don't know – they just voted Tory. No; they did not like the policies. The thing about individual policies and polling – and I learned this through the 1980s, and '90s – is the fallacy of polling individual policies and thinking you're learning something. Because when you're polling an individual policy, first of all, you're separating it from the whole, and in the end, it's the whole thing that people vote on. So you can take individual policies, and each one of them might be popular, but you put them all together, and it's not popular.

But secondly, when you poll individual policies, it's what I call the difference between a three-second conversation, a 30-second conversation and a three-minute conversation.

So, railway renationalisation. Three second conversation: "Yeah, it should be in public ownership."

Thirty-second conversation: "You're going to spend a lot of time on renationalising the railways, and it could cost quite a lot of money, and you've got all the things to do with pension funds. So yeah, no, well, maybe."

Three-minute conversation: "Here are the big challenges in transport: you're going to have driverless vehicles, electric cars, you're going to have to reimagine the entire infrastructure of the country, and you guys are going to be spending all your time on railway renationalisation. I don't think that's a very good idea, actually."

Not coincidentally but Sunak's now proposed that state pensions should be exempt from tax because giving pensioners bungs is all they know now. Also completely undermines their tax strategy which I think has made sense of focusing cuts on National Insurance because it's only on earned income, so pensioners don't pay it.

[Tamas]

Re. the state pension - even if you are a pensioner you fall under regular taxing bands right? So if the state pension is all/most your income you shan't be actually paying any tax on it because you won't go over the minimum limit? Or do I have this wrong?

[Sheilbh]

Yes right now.

But the state pension has the triple lock so each year it will rise by the highest of: inflation, wage growth or 2.5%. So the rise this year was 8.5% (wage growth).

Tax thresholds do not automatically increase with anything (and a big part of the Tory tax rise plans are basically taking advantage of that fiscal drag).

It's projected to be above the tax threshold by 2027 from the ONS - but given that the BofE is noting that wage growth is higher and stickier than they'd expect, I wouldn't be suprised if it was 2026.

I'm also unclear on how it would interact with private pensions. Broadly the UK does not tax pension contributions, but it taxes pension payments (and my understanding is basically everywhere in the world does one or the other). The phrase Sunak used is that this would be a "pension allowance" so it's not clear to me if basically this is state pensions are tax free which means all of someone's private pension would be taxed or if there'd be the personal allowance on top of that.

Plus as I say the government's stance on tax hasn't been mad. Basically they've said it's too complicated (it is - in part because of our budget process) and that they want to focus tax cuts on the taxes paid by working people (ideally eventually getting rid of NI as a separate tax in one way or another). This goes against both of them adding a new complication and creating a new tax pensioners don't pay but working people do.

Edit: And to put the triple lock (which I do support-ish) into perspective, this year's increase is more than is required to get defence spending to 2.5% which the government has committed to by 2030.