All bar one do put Starmer 20 points ahead of the point before he became leader, and that was 19 points. I am not particularly a fan, but quite some swing.
I've recently backed Starmer to be next PM in a modest way. 5ish BF. If anything though he's been drifting.I don't really get why as surely Boris is in more trouble than he's ever been. Is there some view that Labour would use the opportunity of any Tory leadership change to switch too?
I'd really like to find a bet that focussed on the LD/Green race - perhaps "3rd party seatwise"? Would you 1000 on either the Tories or Labour? (Normally probably yes, but currently - not so sure)
The trouble with the next Prime Minister market is you need to factor in that Boris might be replaced before the next election, in which case the next Prime Minister will be a Conservative and not Keir Starmer. We've seen this when going from Cameron to May and from May to Boris. The worse the polls get for the blue team, the more likely it is that Boris will walk, and the more likely it is that backbenchers will send in their letters.
That's the bit I love.
Starmer drifting must point to it being far worse for Boris than I envisioned.
I was a bit wrong-footed by Maggie's departure. I suspect I'll not spot the signs again.
Presumably Sunak's odds are tightening?
No - basically unchanged.
PS. Farooq, I need to offer you an apology. Some weeks ago I concluded that you were some sort of a Chinese infiltrator or other. I'm pretty sure I was wrong though. I'm not sure you're quite what you seem, but hey, who is!
Is that what you thought? Ha, interesting to know. I assure you I'm sincere in my beliefs, and if anyone cares to have a summary of them (I feel my audience at this point wouldn't fill a phone box), it's that we do best as a country when we don't go lurching suddenly off on some mad scheme, when we look after each other, when we preserve our freedoms and stick up for those in the world who want to preserve and win their own. But not at any old price: sometimes we're best to leave well alone. Capitalism is best but turns sour with large wealth inequalities, and we need the odd dose of social democracy to keep us honest. I have fairly wide parameters to what I think acceptable governance looks like, and I think probably 500+ of our MPs are good people. Boris Johnson isn't one of them, and probably has never been a good person in all his wretched life. He's a selfish, dangerous bastard, but even he gets some things right.
I don't have a lot of interest in China. I know their sabre rattling of Taiwan is wrong and their human rights is abysmal, but I also think their leadership has a streak of civilisation through it and they have a path to a better place without us throwing too much vinegar around. I'm much more worried by Russia's leadership, but all this comes from a fairly selfish point of view. I don't think China is really out to deliberately make my life worse, I'm just glad I don't live there. Putin, on the other hand, wants all of us to suffer. We need to watch China, but on Putin, we need to act.
If you know of anyone who is willing to pay for me to spout off on any of the above, I'll gladly take the cash. As long as I'm paid to give my own opinion and not someone else's, I'll happily be an infiltrator.
Very interesting and I agree largely with you but I do not downplay China
It may be a result of our travels to Asia, Australia and New Zealand in the years our eldest son lived in Christchurch 2003 - 2015 and it does provide a different view of the world and that Europe, while important, is not the whole story
On Putin I am genuinely interested in what steps we should take or as you say act
I won't set down in writing what I think should happen with Putin. Let's just say it's very, very hawkish. He's been involved with killing innocent people to help send surges of refugees towards Europe with the express aim of sowing division within Europe. Many of those refugees die. I regard this as functionally the same as sending suicide bombers out on terrorist missions. He's using vulnerable people to achieve a political aim that is itself pretty debased. Whilst Putin is around, everything is a negative sum game, and he's beyond the reach of international justice. The question is, what options does that leave us? I can think of precisely three options, and one of them is to give up and let him win. That is my third choice. I'll leave it to your imaginings as to what the other two could be.
I am no fan of Putin but this is an odd explanation of the Syrian Civil War, which is what I think you are talking about. Surely the Russians just saw an opportunity to have influence in the region, by backing the secular Assad regime; when the west descended in to confusion and disarray. It seems like there would be a refugee problem whatever happened. I don't see how what he has done is much different to the US in the post war era.
The Putin regime requires containment, and an acceptance that this is going to require resources and co-operation for decades; but this is not obviously going to happen.
Pupils whose meal accounts are more than a penny in debt at a school will be left without food at lunchtime.
The severe warning was issued in a letter to parents sent by Neil Foden – the strategic head of Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle in Penygroes, Gwynedd – as part of an approach recommended by the local council.
The ultimatum said the school cook had been instructed not to give food to any pupil ‘if their debt has not been cleared, or, in the future, to children whose accounts do not have enough money to pay for lunch’.
A deadline of November 19 has been set for parents to get their children’s accounts up to date.
Comments
This thread has just been cancelled
The Putin regime requires containment, and an acceptance that this is going to require resources and co-operation for decades; but this is not obviously going to happen.