Populism is one of those terms that's helpful in many ways because it describes an approach to politics which pops up repeatedly across left and right and does have some distinguishing features: a preference for campaigning vs governing, pitting of "the people" vs "the elites", conflating of the political party with "the people" making any dissent a criticism of "the people", a focus of power around a strongman and so on.
Like other terms - fascist, technocrat, socialist, corruption, dictator - it's always at risk of misuse. That's just the nature of any pejorative political term.
"Azeem Rafiq, the Yorkshire offspinner, has been suspended from all cricket for one month and ordered to pay costs of £500 after being found guilty of two breaches of the ECB Directive following his foul-mouthed Twitter attack on the England Under-19 coach John Abraham.
Rafiq, who captained England to a 199-run defeat in the first Test against Sri Lanka U19s, reacted to his omission from the second match at Scarborough (which England won) by firing a scathing attack on Abraham via Twitter, which read: "What a f***ing farsee ... John Abrahams is a useless ****... ECB prove it again what incompetent people are working for them!!"
And he hadn't finished there when he added: "John Abrahams is a useless w****r.""
I guess a "farsee" is a misspelt "farce", and not some racial slur I've never heard?
If this was how the guy behaved when he'd made it into the England set up, was his lack of further progression primarily down to cricket's institutional racism or was it down to his own dickishness?
Led up the garden path. Looks like he never got over this
“Rafiq’s county, Yorkshire, had already suspended the player indefinitely for his outburst, with Stewart Regan, the chief executive, stating: "Azeem's behaviour was totally unacceptable and the club will not tolerate it. Our professional players are role models to aspiring young cricketers and need to behave as such."
So you're saying that none of the allegations against YCCC are true?
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
"I find it hard to envisage a significant Tory recovery under the current leadership."
It's this which is the killer blow for the tories currently. It's nothing to do with Boris Johnson's morality: most of us are only too aware that he isn't fit to be Prime Minister, isn't fit to lead his party, and cannot organise a piss up in brewery.
In short, he doesn't have the capacity to lead his party to another victory. In peaceful meandering times he'd probably have got away with it for two or even three terms. With everything which has gone on he's been exposed in two or three years.
The Conservative Party has a straightforward choice. Soldier on with Bojo and lose the next General Election, which they will, and leave power under another 1997-type pall that will take them two decades to recover from.
Or ditch the clown and at least have a chance. But doing that will also risk internecine warfare of the type which rarely plays out well with the electorate.
What a load of rubbish.
Indeed the latest poll this morning gives the Tories easily most seats under Boris and enough to continue in power with the DUP. A million miles from a 1997 style defeat.
Could I also please ask all the Labour or LD supporters on here who hate Boris to confirm and pledge they will all vote Tory if Sunak, Truss or Hunt replaces Boris?
As if you won't Tories should not care less what you think about Boris. Because the only thing that matters is holding most of the 2019 Tory voters who voted for Boris in 2019 when he won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 1987.
The opinions of those who will never vote Conservative anyway whether led by Boris or not led by Boris are irrelevant
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Threads (and perhaps posts) based on odds against a majority should imo also quote prices for "most seats". Current favourites are "No overall majority" and "Conservatives most seats" and if the election were tomorrow, I'd be backing both. Most seats is, of course, a lower bar than an overall majority.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
FPT - the posts on use of casual racism when young - when I was about 8-10 it was normal at school to refer to anything related to being tight fisted as "being' a jew". The P word was also just used to describe people from anywhere east of Calais except if they were a c***k or a w**. 100% of my junior school was white British. When a jewish kid started at the school and was excused morning assembly and prayers I discovered jews were a people, it wasn't just a word to describe someone being tight-fisted. A bit like when I called my mum a t*at thinking it meant 'idiot - fool-stupid' (which on reflection was bad enough).
The other racial epithets I used at the time were not intentionally racist, they were just the terms everyone used that I knew and I never thought about it - but at the same time it didn't mean we thought people from outside the village weren't inferior, they obviously were as they weren't "English" (ie like everyone else we knew). For people under 50 it might be hard to imagine a country where everybody looked the same and being 'mediterranean' was exotic but that's how it was for me.
Now, I am married to a jewish woman from Odessa, live abroad (from a UK perspective - it's home to me and England is now slowly starting to feel foreign) and spend a lot of time being the strange foreigner (outside Copenhagen there aren't many British people in Denmark).
Do I regret or feel apologetic about being a young boy in an England that now only exists in my memory?- I suppose I do, but not sure why - my intent was never bad but I certainly beleived some undoubtedly racist things at the time. But I grew, found out more about the world and over time realised there are c*nts of all creeds and colours and political leanings. I just ry these days not to be one, but am sure I fail in that for some people.
'But I grew, found out more about the world and over time realised there are c*nts of all creeds and colours and political leanings.'
"I find it hard to envisage a significant Tory recovery under the current leadership."
It's this which is the killer blow for the tories currently. It's nothing to do with Boris Johnson's morality: most of us are only too aware that he isn't fit to be Prime Minister, isn't fit to lead his party, and cannot organise a piss up in brewery.
In short, he doesn't have the capacity to lead his party to another victory. In peaceful meandering times he'd probably have got away with it for two or even three terms. With everything which has gone on he's been exposed in two or three years.
The Conservative Party has a straightforward choice. Soldier on with Bojo and lose the next General Election, which they will, and leave power under another 1997-type pall that will take them two decades to recover from.
Or ditch the clown and at least have a chance. But doing that will also risk internecine warfare of the type which rarely plays out well with the electorate.
What a load of rubbish.
Indeed the latest poll this morning gives the Tories easily most seats under Boris and enough to continue in power with the DUP. A million miles from a 1997 style defeat.
Could I also please ask all the Labour or LD supporters on here who hate Boris to confirm and pledge they will all vote Tory if Sunak, Truss or Hunt replaces Boris?
As if you won't Tories should not care less what you think about Boris. Because the only thing that matters is holding most of the 2019 Tory voters who voted for Boris in 2019 when he won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 1987.
The opinions of those who will never vote Conservative anyway whether led by Boris or not led by Boris are irrelevant
The best news for the Tories is that only 4% of their 2019 voters have switched to Labour according to this new poll.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
Please focus all your time on it - it really won't help you if that's the best you can do.
Remember Nimbyism wins votes everywhere (as the Lib Dems will demonstrate in 2023/4).
FPT - the posts on use of casual racism when young - when I was about 8-10 it was normal at school to refer to anything related to being tight fisted as "being' a jew". The P word was also just used to describe people from anywhere east of Calais except if they were a c***k or a w**. 100% of my junior school was white British. When a jewish kid started at the school and was excused morning assembly and prayers I discovered jews were a people, it wasn't just a word to describe someone being tight-fisted. A bit like when I called my mum a t*at thinking it meant 'idiot - fool-stupid' (which on reflection was bad enough).
The other racial epithets I used at the time were not intentionally racist, they were just the terms everyone used that I knew and I never thought about it - but at the same time it didn't mean we thought people from outside the village weren't inferior, they obviously were as they weren't "English" (ie like everyone else we knew). For people under 50 it might be hard to imagine a country where everybody looked the same and being 'mediterranean' was exotic but that's how it was for me.
Now, I am married to a jewish woman from Odessa, live abroad (from a UK perspective - it's home to me and England is now slowly starting to feel foreign) and spend a lot of time being the strange foreigner (outside Copenhagen there aren't many British people in Denmark).
Do I regret or feel apologetic about being a young boy in an England that now only exists in my memory?- I suppose I do, but not sure why - my intent was never bad but I certainly beleived some undoubtedly racist things at the time. But I grew, found out more about the world and over time realised there are c*nts of all creeds and colours and political leanings. I just ry these days not to be one, but am sure I fail in that for some people.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
That would be a good result for the Conservatives, obviously depending whom it is. The less they are connected to the dishonesty and laziness of the Johnson brand the better.
That’s actually a reason why I suspect Sunak’s odds might be a bit too short. From within Cabinet it would most likely be someone associated with the perceived successes rather than failures. Which gives me Truss and Zahawi. No idea if these two carry sufficient support in the parliamentary party to make the run off. One wonders who the 2019 intake will line up behind. There were 107 of them after all.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
He is hawkish on China, fiscally sound and presents magnificently. Whether he’d be up to it, who knows. I named him because if you were looking outside of Cabinet, the chairs of the most senior committees seem a reasonable place to look.
"I find it hard to envisage a significant Tory recovery under the current leadership."
It's this which is the killer blow for the tories currently. It's nothing to do with Boris Johnson's morality: most of us are only too aware that he isn't fit to be Prime Minister, isn't fit to lead his party, and cannot organise a piss up in brewery.
In short, he doesn't have the capacity to lead his party to another victory. In peaceful meandering times he'd probably have got away with it for two or even three terms. With everything which has gone on he's been exposed in two or three years.
The Conservative Party has a straightforward choice. Soldier on with Bojo and lose the next General Election, which they will, and leave power under another 1997-type pall that will take them two decades to recover from.
Or ditch the clown and at least have a chance. But doing that will also risk internecine warfare of the type which rarely plays out well with the electorate.
What a load of rubbish.
The opinions of those who will never vote Conservative anyway whether led by Boris or not led by Boris are irrelevant
We shall see. You are a tory councillor of right-wing persuasion so you don't represent the people who matter.
Those are the floating voters. I have in fact voted Conservative a number of times and many of my friends are Conservatives, and I have contacts in Westminster.
The future for the tories under Boris Johnson is bleak. You will come to admit this in years to come so for now, if you wish to be one of the last to see sunlit uplands, that is of course your prerogative.
I’d put the chances of a Labour majority at the next election as high as Alex Hales receiving an England recall.
It would require both a Tory and SNP implosion. Can’t see both happening.
I reckon NOM is misunderestimated.
Tory majority (326+) 46% NOM (47%) Labour majority (326+) 7%
Tory or Tory led NOM government 47% Labour led NOM government; 46% Labour government 7%.
Tory or Tory led NOM government 47% Labour led NOM government; 46% I can think of possible bedfellows for Labour (SNP, LibDems, Plaid, Greens even some NI MPs), but who would support the Tories?
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
That is a big step on much of the cabinet who seem deluded before, during and after events.
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
That's not how some people use the word. Some people take it to mean whipping up fury amongst the people against (perceived) elites in order for you to gain politically. E.g. "metropolitan elites", "coastal elites", "Jewish bankers", "luvvies", "big pharma", etc.
But those same people then extend its usage to mean anything they don't like on the grounds that if it is popular with the masses then it must automatically be suspect. Populism is the attack line used by elitist bigots who have always had their doubts about democracy and who would much prefer it if we just let then get on and run the country without all that nasty voting business. It is the attack line of the arrogant and out of touch.
In my view, populism is a pejorative term because it essentially means doing things that cause a knee jerk populist response, i.e. headlines for the sake of headlines. Attack migrants, blame migrants, express dislike of foreigners etc. You could argue that in Blair's early days he fitted this model, but using different targets. Populism is not the same as doing what is popular. It therefore isn't the antithesis of elitism, because often the elites (Johnson being a prime example) use populism to keep themselves in power.
Our system of democracy is/was representative, and therefore we delegate responsibility to politicians in the hope that they will investigate the issues and do what is right, not do what they hope will get a response from the public's baser instincts.
And yet as we have seen too often they end up doing what is good for them and their social strata/political class rather than what is good for the people who elected them. And if anyone argues against this and says that perhaps they should be at least asking what the people want then they are accused of 'populism'.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
Increased Tory majority as we speak is wishful thinking, although that could change (very, very unlikely I would say).
And your Labour majority figure is 5% too high.
Odds are not just about "as we speak" though they're about what could happen. As we speak then a reduced Tory majority would be the only real game in town, but over three years things can change.
Of course it is. Which is why the market is fluctuating for a Tory majority after the last two weeks.
My Labour 0% is based on fact. And fact that is unlikely to change. The current direction of travel for the Tories is down, which is why your prediction of a Tory increased majority appears counter intuitive. When things change. Boris invents another vaccine, or Sunak replaces Johnson, maybe you wishful prediction will be borne out by the odds.
An increased Tory majority may be counterintuitive but counterintuitive things can happen and identifying which ones can happen and why is how we identify value.
Labour 0% is not fact. 0% means its impossible and never say never.
With a 1997-style swing (unlikely but possible) then Labour could gain a majority via English and Welsh seats, while picking up a handful of Scottish ones. Is that likely? No. Is it possible? Yes - and if its possible its not 0%
Overturning the Tory majority is going to take such a large swing that an overshoot into Labour majority is possible.
It is counterintuitive because it is at best wishful thinking on your part and at worst a guess. You work on what I would call "The Daily Express Gambit", where your wild guesses that are against the head might occasionally turn out to be right. You no doubt keep very quiet about the wild guesses that are wrong, much like the Daily Express.
As I've said, I don't expect it to happen, but I think there's a 20% chance. A slim chance, but still a chance.
I've got logic for why I think it is a real possibility. I might submit my draft to TSE and see if he thinks its worth publishing.
You should. As I say, it's to die for. Consensus predictions full of 'cya' caveats are worth sweet fa in betting terms.
Are the FIA going to penalise Verstappen for his unacceptable driving last weekend, or let him off and encourage more of the same ?
(BBC)...Ferrari driver Charles Leclerc, for example, pointed out that if what Verstappen did - running wide and forcing a driver who was ahead into the corner off the track to defend his position - goes by without penalty, then “overtaking on the outside is going to be very difficult”.
Leclerc, who lost a race victory to Verstappen in Austria in 2019 to one of these types of calls, when the Red Bull driver forced him off at Turn Three to take the lead, said: “Whatever the decision is I will adapt my driving to it, so I’m fine with both.”
And he said - as he said at the time - that he changed his driving for the next race after Verstappen got away with it. Which led directly to their intense scrap over many laps at the next race in Silverstone.
“As soon as I knew it wasn’t a penalty for max in Austria,” Leclerc said, “I came to Silverstone and I changed my driving. I think it’s a bit the same for every driver, we always try to race at the limit of what we are allowed to do and that’s what I will do in case these things are allowed.”
And McLaren have questions, too. In Austria this year, Lando Norris was given a five-second penalty for forcing Sergio Perez off the track. Team boss Andreas Seidl said: “Lando got a penalty in Austria for something that from our point of view was debatable. You can definitely argue that what happened in Austria was Lando’s corner, different from what we have seen in Brazil.
"So we are very interested in not necessarily the ruling of today but more understanding what (race director) Michael (Masi) will brief to the drivers in the briefing on how they see things moving forward. Because whatever the outcome is, it will definitely change the approach of the drivers to a certain manoeuvres on track.”...
It wouldn't surprise me if they let him off - and then threaten to penalise anyone who does the same...
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
And there have been various different versions of what they are building at Euston. Standing up for residents is why we have MPs. And there has been some success for them with the scheme pared back to be less destructive.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
It's not just that Labour need to make inroads against the SNP, it's that they need to do so before a general election - so that they can convince English voters they won't be reliant on SNP support.
Absent a complete disintegration of the SNP into competing parties, necessitating a snap Holyrood election at which Labour makes stunning gains, there simply isn't an opportunity for Labour to make such an advance before the next GE.
Are the FIA going to penalise Verstappen for his unacceptable driving last weekend, or let him off and encourage more of the same ?
(BBC)...Ferrari driver Charles Leclerc, for example, pointed out that if what Verstappen did - running wide and forcing a driver who was ahead into the corner off the track to defend his position - goes by without penalty, then “overtaking on the outside is going to be very difficult”.
Leclerc, who lost a race victory to Verstappen in Austria in 2019 to one of these types of calls, when the Red Bull driver forced him off at Turn Three to take the lead, said: “Whatever the decision is I will adapt my driving to it, so I’m fine with both.”
And he said - as he said at the time - that he changed his driving for the next race after Verstappen got away with it. Which led directly to their intense scrap over many laps at the next race in Silverstone.
“As soon as I knew it wasn’t a penalty for max in Austria,” Leclerc said, “I came to Silverstone and I changed my driving. I think it’s a bit the same for every driver, we always try to race at the limit of what we are allowed to do and that’s what I will do in case these things are allowed.”
And McLaren have questions, too. In Austria this year, Lando Norris was given a five-second penalty for forcing Sergio Perez off the track. Team boss Andreas Seidl said: “Lando got a penalty in Austria for something that from our point of view was debatable. You can definitely argue that what happened in Austria was Lando’s corner, different from what we have seen in Brazil.
"So we are very interested in not necessarily the ruling of today but more understanding what (race director) Michael (Masi) will brief to the drivers in the briefing on how they see things moving forward. Because whatever the outcome is, it will definitely change the approach of the drivers to a certain manoeuvres on track.”...
It wouldn't surprise me if they let him off - and then threaten to penalise anyone who does the same...
Given that the usual punishment is for a 10 or 20 second penalty to be added to the end result - I suspect that is what we will see. That will cost Max 3 points and just open the championship up a little bit more.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
"I find it hard to envisage a significant Tory recovery under the current leadership."
It's this which is the killer blow for the tories currently. It's nothing to do with Boris Johnson's morality: most of us are only too aware that he isn't fit to be Prime Minister, isn't fit to lead his party, and cannot organise a piss up in brewery.
In short, he doesn't have the capacity to lead his party to another victory. In peaceful meandering times he'd probably have got away with it for two or even three terms. With everything which has gone on he's been exposed in two or three years.
The Conservative Party has a straightforward choice. Soldier on with Bojo and lose the next General Election, which they will, and leave power under another 1997-type pall that will take them two decades to recover from.
Or ditch the clown and at least have a chance. But doing that will also risk internecine warfare of the type which rarely plays out well with the electorate.
What a load of rubbish.
The opinions of those who will never vote Conservative anyway whether led by Boris or not led by Boris are irrelevant
We shall see. You are a tory councillor of right-wing persuasion so you don't represent the people who matter.
Those are the floating voters. I have in fact voted Conservative a number of times and many of my friends are Conservatives, and I have contacts in Westminster.
The future for the tories under Boris Johnson is bleak. You will come to admit this in years to come so for now, if you wish to be one of the last to see sunlit uplands, that is of course your prerogative.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
I think that’s an incorrect definition
It’s someone who does things that are popular irrespective of whether they are the best decision on the facts
This won't really do. 'Populist' carries with it the idea of paying attention to the feelings and beliefs of groups of people who feel unfashionable, disregarded and powerless. This sense enables it to have a meaning without all sorts of value laden baggage about 'people like them' and 'popular irrespective.... of facts'. And there can be good, less good, bad and evil populist leaders.
But for those with a sense of entitlement (aristocrats, trustafarians, single issue activists of every hue, academics, students, dogmatists et al) populism and populists must be bad of course. But that's a value, not a fact.
All things considered, it's better than the government deserves.
It's a respectable score for a mid-term Government which has already been in power for more than ten years. Clearly, the GE is not in the bag, but I really can't see Boris going anywhere on that basis. MPs not happy but, I guess, not panicking either.
I have a feeling that the by-elections won't be good news for him, but we are straight into Xmas afterwards and recess, so the timing is pretty good.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Ever tried to get from the Victoria line to the Circle line at Kings Cross with luggage?
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
That's not how some people use the word. Some people take it to mean whipping up fury amongst the people against (perceived) elites in order for you to gain politically. E.g. "metropolitan elites", "coastal elites", "Jewish bankers", "luvvies", "big pharma", etc.
But those same people then extend its usage to mean anything they don't like on the grounds that if it is popular with the masses then it must automatically be suspect. Populism is the attack line used by elitist bigots who have always had their doubts about democracy and who would much prefer it if we just let then get on and run the country without all that nasty voting business. It is the attack line of the arrogant and out of touch.
In my view, populism is a pejorative term because it essentially means doing things that cause a knee jerk populist response, i.e. headlines for the sake of headlines. Attack migrants, blame migrants, express dislike of foreigners etc. You could argue that in Blair's early days he fitted this model, but using different targets. Populism is not the same as doing what is popular. It therefore isn't the antithesis of elitism, because often the elites (Johnson being a prime example) use populism to keep themselves in power.
Our system of democracy is/was representative, and therefore we delegate responsibility to politicians in the hope that they will investigate the issues and do what is right, not do what they hope will get a response from the public's baser instincts.
And yet as we have seen too often they end up doing what is good for them and their social strata/political class rather than what is good for the people who elected them. And if anyone argues against this and says that perhaps they should be at least asking what the people want then they are accused of 'populism'.
For sure. We're not ruled by impartial philosophers.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
Holborn and St Pancras is 203rd on the list of 533 areas on indicies of deprivation. (Key: 1 is the most deprived).
It's on a par with Bury South, Warrington North, North Cornwall, and North West Durham.
Yeah, but the ones writing in disgust to SKS are the posh ones living in Primrose Hill.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
On the previous thread, just after (I discovered) this one had arrived, I posted (amended) What seems to being forgotten, or ignored (IMHO anyway!) is that Boris is a good politician and, just at this moment, desperately needs a win, even if only in a sham fight. So I expect that, on Norn, he and Frost will talk very tough, make all sorts of threats and then when the EU has conceded some minor point crow about 'victory' over the brutal enemy. Which line the Telegraph and Express will swallow whole, and which the BBC and the Mail will spend quite a lot of supportive time on.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
He is hawkish on China, fiscally sound and presents magnificently. Whether he’d be up to it, who knows. I named him because if you were looking outside of Cabinet, the chairs of the most senior committees seem a reasonable place to look.
I regard him as a failure as chair of the Foreign Affairs committee in even having an inkling of what was to come in Afghanistan. Which made his protestations after the fact look self serving. Whereas the Lords equivalent was well on top of that brief, and regularly warned ministers about the likely consequences.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry · 2h Listening to @grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
I'm not convinced that it is - not on the Met / Circle line. But there was literally no other option inside central London.
Whilst Old Oak Common is on paper a stupid idea, it really isn't when you consider how people travel once they arrive at the terminus. Almost everyone connects onward to somewhere else - by tube for which Euston isn't the best option. OOC would have been one stop from Paddington so not really adding much to the journey time and Crossrail; has much better opportunity to distribute passengers in high volume.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
I think we can safely say that the Tory Party is saving quite a bit of ammunition about SKS and Labour for the election. This is one of the reasons the Tories are underestimated by the betting markets.
The Tories also colossal opportunities in splitting the centre left vote three (or in Scotland 4) ways. This can't be done reverse, unless by the time of the election Reform or whatever have got an act together.
Are the FIA going to penalise Verstappen for his unacceptable driving last weekend, or let him off and encourage more of the same ?
(BBC)...Ferrari driver Charles Leclerc, for example, pointed out that if what Verstappen did - running wide and forcing a driver who was ahead into the corner off the track to defend his position - goes by without penalty, then “overtaking on the outside is going to be very difficult”.
Leclerc, who lost a race victory to Verstappen in Austria in 2019 to one of these types of calls, when the Red Bull driver forced him off at Turn Three to take the lead, said: “Whatever the decision is I will adapt my driving to it, so I’m fine with both.”
And he said - as he said at the time - that he changed his driving for the next race after Verstappen got away with it. Which led directly to their intense scrap over many laps at the next race in Silverstone.
“As soon as I knew it wasn’t a penalty for max in Austria,” Leclerc said, “I came to Silverstone and I changed my driving. I think it’s a bit the same for every driver, we always try to race at the limit of what we are allowed to do and that’s what I will do in case these things are allowed.”
And McLaren have questions, too. In Austria this year, Lando Norris was given a five-second penalty for forcing Sergio Perez off the track. Team boss Andreas Seidl said: “Lando got a penalty in Austria for something that from our point of view was debatable. You can definitely argue that what happened in Austria was Lando’s corner, different from what we have seen in Brazil.
"So we are very interested in not necessarily the ruling of today but more understanding what (race director) Michael (Masi) will brief to the drivers in the briefing on how they see things moving forward. Because whatever the outcome is, it will definitely change the approach of the drivers to a certain manoeuvres on track.”...
It wouldn't surprise me if they let him off - and then threaten to penalise anyone who does the same...
Given that the usual punishment is for a 10 or 20 second penalty to be added to the end result - I suspect that is what we will see. That will cost Max 3 points and just open the championship up a little bit more.
We will see. For the sake of consistency with earlier decisions, that is what they ought to do. I suspect they might try to avoid it.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
He is hawkish on China, fiscally sound and presents magnificently. Whether he’d be up to it, who knows. I named him because if you were looking outside of Cabinet, the chairs of the most senior committees seem a reasonable place to look.
I regard him as a failure as chair of the Foreign Affairs committee in even having an inkling of what was to come in Afghanistan. Which made his protestations after the fact look self serving. Whereas the Lords equivalent was well on top of that brief, and regularly warned ministers about the likely consequences.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
An INCREASED Con majority just as likely as NOM? Gosh, Philip, that's massively contra consensus. So is Con majority of any size at 75%.
It's a punting view to die for. Can I have it please?
I'm stuck with Con maj and NOM both around 50%.
Considering I could lay NOM at better than evens right now, why would I do a multiple of laying NOM and backing an increased majority for evens?
If you wish to offer interesting terms then I'd consider them.
No, I mean I'd love to have your view! You can coin it on betfair. That's my point. I'd never try and leg you over on a bet, Philip. What would that make me? A heel, that's what.
Hey, so the drums are beating a bit more for no big Art 16 shenanigans now, I see. No longer 'likely' but maybe still not quite 'unlikely'. What drama.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
And as I already said earlier - only because they didn't understand it's true purpose.
HS2 has been sold disastrously since the first 10 seconds of it's initial announcement. It increases capacity which will result in faster trains, but that capacity is never mentioned.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
That's not how some people use the word. Some people take it to mean whipping up fury amongst the people against (perceived) elites in order for you to gain politically. E.g. "metropolitan elites", "coastal elites", "Jewish bankers", "luvvies", "big pharma", etc.
But those same people then extend its usage to mean anything they don't like on the grounds that if it is popular with the masses then it must automatically be suspect. Populism is the attack line used by elitist bigots who have always had their doubts about democracy and who would much prefer it if we just let then get on and run the country without all that nasty voting business. It is the attack line of the arrogant and out of touch.
In my view, populism is a pejorative term because it essentially means doing things that cause a knee jerk populist response, i.e. headlines for the sake of headlines. Attack migrants, blame migrants, express dislike of foreigners etc. You could argue that in Blair's early days he fitted this model, but using different targets. Populism is not the same as doing what is popular. It therefore isn't the antithesis of elitism, because often the elites (Johnson being a prime example) use populism to keep themselves in power.
Our system of democracy is/was representative, and therefore we delegate responsibility to politicians in the hope that they will investigate the issues and do what is right, not do what they hope will get a response from the public's baser instincts.
And yet as we have seen too often they end up doing what is good for them and their social strata/political class rather than what is good for the people who elected them. And if anyone argues against this and says that perhaps they should be at least asking what the people want then they are accused of 'populism'.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I don't understand the enthusiasm for Tugendhat, who seems no more than a wise after the event kind of guy.
He is hawkish on China, fiscally sound and presents magnificently. Whether he’d be up to it, who knows. I named him because if you were looking outside of Cabinet, the chairs of the most senior committees seem a reasonable place to look.
I regard him as a failure as chair of the Foreign Affairs committee in even having an inkling of what was to come in Afghanistan. Which made his protestations after the fact look self serving. Whereas the Lords equivalent was well on top of that brief, and regularly warned ministers about the likely consequences.
Interesting.
By the way I drew a blank looking at the other committee chairs for left field candidates. I don’t think Mel Stride or Greg Clark would even put themselves up. So someone from the current Cabinet it will likely be.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Local MP not wanting project their constituents don't want - hardly news. Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
Nope, as a local MP he was happy to pander to NIMBYISM - prioritising poshos in London over the North of England. That's the character of the man right there. The Tories should go hard on it.
OK. Lets consider how that attack line plays out in the context of the Tories just having shafted the north of England and lied to them about having done so...
All this "shafting the North of England" stuff about HS2, as I said earlier for years so many posters on here have said what a complete waste of money HS2 was, now part of it has been cancelled it is suddenly the greatest engineering project ever.
And as I already said earlier - only because they didn't understand it's true purpose.
HS2 has been sold disastrously since the first 10 seconds of it's initial announcement. It increases capacity which will result in faster trains, but that capacity is never mentioned.
That's one of the many things I have come to appreciate on PB - was always aware dimly of the importance oc capacity (after all, some of the main lines into London were quadrupled precisely to enable fat passenger and slow goods esp coal to travel along the same lines), but the discussions here have been very informative.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
Tugendhat has no chance. The europhobe tories aren't going to vote for a very rejoinery citizen of the Cinquième République as leader.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Sigh.
We've had this discussion many times and I think they should have gone the whole hog and built the connection to HS1 and installed customs/passport control at Brum/Man etc.
But do you really think Old Oak Common would have been better for passenger continuing on to Europe (clue: Crossrail does not go to Kings Cross St Pancras)?
O/t, but interesting from the Economist. I don't subscribe, so can't go further.
As best as scientists can tell, Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago. But they did not vanish from the Earth entirely. In the past decade it has become clear that Neanderthals mated with the ancestors of modern humans, and that at least some of those unions produced viable offspring. The upshot is that almost half of the Neanderthal genome still survives, scattered in small quantities among almost all modern people’s dna. (The exception is those with mostly African ancestors, for Neanderthals seem never to have lived in Africa.)
Such genes have been associated with everything from hairiness to fat metabolism. Many seem to be related to the immune system, and to affect the risk of developing diseases including lupus, Crohn's and diabetes. A pair of recent papers suggest covid-19 belongs on that list as well. Two long sections of dna, both inherited from Neanderthals, appear to confer resistance or susceptibility to severe covid-19, depending on which is present.
On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
I think that’s an incorrect definition
It’s someone who does things that are popular irrespective of whether they are the best decision on the facts
A simple definition of populism ought also to include being divisive by design. 'People like them', 'people like me' does capture something of that.
Surely it has not much to do with "popular", despite sharing the first 5 letters. It's a term of abuse because it implies "I speak for the (real/ordinary/British) people, the people who disagree are not real ordinary British people". Even if half the country or more oppose all those who oppose are traitors. That is why it is so often accompanied by racism scapegoating etc.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry · 2h Listening to @grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.
He repeated his 12m from Bradford to Leeds promise this morning, not as an aspiration, but saying "it will happen this decade". Ditto tripling the capacity between Leeds and Manchester.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Sigh.
We've had this discussion many times and I think they should have gone the whole hog and built the connection to HS1 and installed customs/passport control at Brum/Man etc.
But do you really think Old Oak Common would have been better for passenger continuing on to Europe (clue: Crossrail does not go to Kings Cross St Pancras)?
I was simply responding to the praise of Euston - didn't say that OOC was great either. But you are right, well aired already.
On Starmer's changed view of HS2 I wonder if he has thought this through
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
In politics nothing is as simple as it seems
Indeed, there is also a regional divide on HS2.
While voters in London want to keep the Birmingham-Leeds HS2 route by 29% to 23% as do voters in the North by 35% to 25%, voters in the Midlands and Wales back the government scrapping the Birmingham-Leeds HS2 route by 29% to 26% as do voters in the South by 29% to 23% https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/11/18/98559/1
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
I think Starmer is doing about as well as could reasonably be expected.
He's appeared to manage the anti-semitism crisis so that the Labour Party can mostly put it behind them.
He's started the process of finding the credible Labour members of a future government.
He's identified the correct strategic position for Labour on Brexit, so that they can attack the government on it and heal the Brexit divide: "Make Brexit Work".
He's done a decent job of the day-to-day business of Opposition to make the most of the government's troubles in the post-pandemic emergency period.
And yet, he's still a Hail Mary pass away from denying the Tories a majority at the next election. It's a very long road back from the nadir Labour reached in 2019.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
Yeah and if anyone wants to get to the square mile it's 5 stops to Moorgate and 6 to Bank on the Northern Line. I don't understand the moaning about Euston at all, it is really well located.
Make sure you allow enough time for any necessary security checks which may include random searches. Small personal bags are permitted - please ensure your bags are no larger than A5 and only one bag per person is allowed. It is advised you only bring a bag if it is absolutely essential, please see our checklist of what can/cannot be brought in to the stadium here.
Arsenal tried to do something similar at the start of the season (you could only use a clear bag purchased from the Arsenal shop for £1), but thankfully enough fans kicked off that they reverted to allowing reasonable sized rucksacks in.
Not happy, the fan groups have been liaising with the club. There kick offs for a couple of pre season friendlies were delayed because the system couldn’t cope.
The club have offered £2 pints and cheaper food to allow the fans to get to the ground earlier.
But the teething problems aren’t as bad as they were in July/August.
Interesting that Liverpool have persisted with the policy. Arsenal folded after a couple of games! I only looked up Liverpool's policy, because I got this email from Arsenal yesterday:
We have been advised by Liverpool FC that there will be a zero-bag policy enforced (with the exception of medical bags) for supporters entering the stadium on Saturday, November 20, 2021.
There will be no bag drop/storage facility at the stadium so please avoid bringing a bag with you as you will be refused entry.
Not a problem for me as I drive to away games outside of London, but it's not great that away fans are being discriminated against in this way.
Why would you take a bag to the football in any event. That was only necessary when you used to take your own booze to the games , and that was a long time ago.
"Azeem Rafiq, the Yorkshire offspinner, has been suspended from all cricket for one month and ordered to pay costs of £500 after being found guilty of two breaches of the ECB Directive following his foul-mouthed Twitter attack on the England Under-19 coach John Abraham.
Rafiq, who captained England to a 199-run defeat in the first Test against Sri Lanka U19s, reacted to his omission from the second match at Scarborough (which England won) by firing a scathing attack on Abraham via Twitter, which read: "What a f***ing farsee ... John Abrahams is a useless ****... ECB prove it again what incompetent people are working for them!!"
And he hadn't finished there when he added: "John Abrahams is a useless w****r.""
I guess a "farsee" is a misspelt "farce", and not some racial slur I've never heard?
If this was how the guy behaved when he'd made it into the England set up, was his lack of further progression primarily down to cricket's institutional racism or was it down to his own dickishness?
Pharsi/Farsee in Punjabi means the Persian/Iranian language.
My guess in this case it is autocorrect - he likely uses the Punjabi term in ordinary course but meant “farce” on this occasion
On the previous thread, just after (I discovered) this one had arrived, I posted (amended) What seems to being forgotten, or ignored (IMHO anyway!) is that Boris is a good politician and, just at this moment, desperately needs a win, even if only in a sham fight. So I expect that, on Norn, he and Frost will talk very tough, make all sorts of threats and then when the EU has conceded some minor point crow about 'victory' over the brutal enemy. Which line the Telegraph and Express will swallow whole, and which the BBC and the Mail will spend quite a lot of supportive time on.
And will push up the Tory percentage.
I agree we're about to get exactly that sort of nonsense (again) but I'm quite hopeful most of the public will see through it. The 'pavlov's dog' reaction that Johnson counts on with this EU stuff might just be running out of steam.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
Tugendhat has no chance. The europhobe tories aren't going to vote for a very rejoinery citizen of the Cinquième République as leader.
Fantastic value on Tory majority. A major over-reaction to the news.
My predictions would be Increased Tory majority 20% Smaller Tory majority 55% NOM 20% Labour majority 5%
I can't see an increased Tory Majority (yes Farage cost Boris seats but there will be losses) but a smaller Tory majority (ala 92) has to be the likely outcome
I actually drafted before the Budget a proposed thread header I was going to email into TSE for the site on why I think an increased Tory majority is possible and looking at odds and betting markets for that.
I feel silly sending it in right now during this maelstrom though so was waiting for it to blow over.
Don't feel silly - an increased majority is absolutely possible. Where we may disagree is why and how that can happen. I think Boris is a liability who needs to be replaced if the Tories want that to happen.
Bin him off, make a public sweep of the worst of the corruption, ping money parcels at the right people and the right places and they can do it. Or, keep him and see their turnout drop enough to throw scores of seats over to Labour / LibDem / SNP.
One wonders whether the next PM may come from outside the current Cabinet. Hunt I know is the obvious such candidate. But what about a Tugendhat? Or is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Or a grey beard outside of Cabinet I’ve forgotten about?
I suspect Hunt’s time has passed. But he’s clean as and when the Tories come to their senses
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Sigh.
We've had this discussion many times and I think they should have gone the whole hog and built the connection to HS1 and installed customs/passport control at Brum/Man etc.
But do you really think Old Oak Common would have been better for passenger continuing on to Europe (clue: Crossrail does not go to Kings Cross St Pancras)?
I was simply responding to the praise of Euston - didn't say that OOC was great either. But you are right, well aired already.
I would’ve loved it if they had designed it as a proper national network from the start. If you’d had through trains at London rather than it just being a terminus, you’d have needed fewer platforms.
So a Southampton & Portsmouth line straight into London, and another one coming from South Wales and Bristol. With all those lines offering either a direct service or an interchange in central london either to the North or down to Ebbsfleet / Ashford.
And of course at the Northern end Manchester should’ve been designed as a through station to Liverpool and Leeds from the start.
Would’ve cost a lot sure. But at least we’d have a useful national asset to show for all that tax we pay.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Yes we all know Tories never abuse their positions as MP's or fill their pockets with lobbying , extra curricular jobs etc. People would never need to read a report to know that was fact.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry · 2h Listening to @grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.
He repeated his 12m from Bradford to Leeds promise this morning, not as an aspiration, but saying "it will happen this decade". Ditto tripling the capacity between Leeds and Manchester.
Probably realises he is in line for the chop, so getting even more reckless than before.
I am amused with David Herdson using the term 'populist' as a term of abuse.
Do you know what it means ?
It means when someone does something which is popular with 'people like them' instead of 'people like me'.
The 'people like them' and 'people like me' varying from individual to individual.
I think that’s an incorrect definition
It’s someone who does things that are popular irrespective of whether they are the best decision on the facts
A simple definition of populism ought also to include being divisive by design. 'People like them', 'people like me' does capture something of that.
Surely it has not much to do with "popular", despite sharing the first 5 letters. It's a term of abuse because it implies "I speak for the (real/ordinary/British) people, the people who disagree are not real ordinary British people". Even if half the country or more oppose all those who oppose are traitors. That is why it is so often accompanied by racism scapegoating etc.
I'd agree that it's a perjorative term, and rightly so, in the main.
That said, it I don't think you can ignore the fact that it thrives when long standing grievances of a significant part of the electorate have no real representation in government over an extended period of time. Hence both Brexit and the SNP, both of which could reasonably be described as populist.
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
My point was more about asset classes
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
Sigh.
We've had this discussion many times and I think they should have gone the whole hog and built the connection to HS1 and installed customs/passport control at Brum/Man etc.
But do you really think Old Oak Common would have been better for passenger continuing on to Europe (clue: Crossrail does not go to Kings Cross St Pancras)?
I was simply responding to the praise of Euston - didn't say that OOC was great either. But you are right, well aired already.
I would’ve loved it if they had designed it as a proper national network from the start. If you’d had through trains at London rather than it just being a terminus, you’d have needed fewer platforms.
So a Southampton & Portsmouth line straight into London, and another one coming from South Wales and Bristol. With all those lines offering either a direct service or an interchange in central london either to the North or down to Ebbsfleet / Ashford.
And of course at the Northern end Manchester should’ve been designed as a through station to Liverpool and Leeds from the start.
Would’ve cost a lot sure. But at least we’d have a useful national asset to show for all that tax we pay.
Disadvantage of being first in the field. They do these things much better in San Seriffe!
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
To the small extent that I give a fuck about any of this train bollocks the thing that puzzles me is why Johnson is doing it. He's going to be long gone before it's the inevitable expensive fiasco and he clearly doesn't give a toss about spending money so why is he binning it? Is he just pathologically addicted to breaking promises?
Someone's knifing him. Probably Rishi - he can pluck numbers out of his arse to frighten Johnson in the absolute certainty Johnson won't understand them.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
My point was more about asset classes
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Basically the analysis is meaningless
Successful candidates have a motive, and financial assistance, to buy a flat in London. Unsuccessful ones don't.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
That's 1 stop on the Victoria or Northern lines..
For years it was sold as a through-line from the north and Midlands without having to get off the train.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
Not really. He was anti HS2 a few years ago as MP for Holburn & St Pancras. He's pro HS2 as leader of the Labour Party now. People will make their minds up about how terrible this is. For example, did he tell all and sundry that he would "lie down in front of the diggers" if necessary to stop it? Stuff like that, while all a bit soapy, can play into perceptions.
Interviewers of SKS will just bring it up over and over, as a politician you cannot go from someone delivering petetions against something a couple of years ago to now being totally in favour of it and beating the Government for not completing HS2 in its entirety.
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
All a bit petty though. Really small beer. If that's going to be the best the Tories have to offer come the GE after 14 years in power I need to radically uplift my percentage chance of a Labour majority.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Ever tried to get from the Victoria line to the Circle line at Kings Cross with luggage?
Bloody awful experience. No lifts. It's easier to walk down the street a lot of of the time.
1. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that NPR (including a new line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford) would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it. 3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency. 4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
Yep, but as he may well say, and has said, he didn't pledge a global pandemic either. Not sure if that line will work but it's not unreasonable given the dosh spent on furloughing etc.
Starmer wanted the London terminus to be at Old Oak Common.
So he's even more of an idiot than those running the show now.
Apparently beacuse he is now Leader of the Labour Party anything he believed and fought for before the date he was elected Leader is now irrelevant and he can now have completely opposable views to the ones he had a couple of years ago because he can attack the Government with these new views.
That wasn't my argument.
HS2 in already being built - so given that you may as well get on with it and build it properly.
Your argument really, doesn't work when Camden is (as Leon has pointed out on here before) already an HS2 building site...
But I think the Tories should go for him on OOC. I know the public can really only handle quite simple ideas, but I think the idea of terminating it six miles from the centre of London should be fairly obvious to the public what an idiot Starmer is.
Won't work - as I said before, the issue is that with Paddington built on there are no cheap options.
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Euston Square is across the road and King's Cross is one stop on the Victoria line. Euston is a good place to terminate.
Euston is in walking distance of a lot of central London.
If you are a commuter. Not so great if you are a traveller wanting to continue into the rest of Europe.
That's 1 stop on the Victoria or Northern lines..
For years it was sold as a through-line from the north and Midlands without having to get off the train.
HS2 was? Have you got a link to a document that says as much as I can't remember that (were you doing that you do it at Reading not in central London) nor OOC because that already has access issues (but was the best of no great options),
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
I haven’t been through the report but suspect that is strongly correlated to prior real estate ownership
Only read the abstract, but it uses matching (with unsuccessful parliamentary candidates) and regression discontinuity (not absolutely convinced the latter makes sense - not enough very close to the win/lose boundary? - but I haven't read the detail; if the discontinuity is election it sounds more like interrupted time series...). Anyway, prior real estate ownership is unlikely to explain, unless successful parliamentary candidates have more than unsuccessful ones. The abstract also states the wealth is mainly from outside employment positions.
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
My point was more about asset classes
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Basically the analysis is meaningless
Matching (done well, which it isn't, always) should take care of that. As should RD (I'm not fully convinced the data match the design that well but the idea is that winning/not winning a seat is - for those winning/losing narrowly - randomised, so you can compare Con MPs who just won a seat with Con candidates who just failed to win a seat and assume randomisation and causation between becoming an MP and changes in wealth (apologies if I'm teaching grandma to suck eggs).
Better criticisms, imho, are: (i) it's a very historical analysis (only MPs who had died when the study was done) so any differences between Labour and Con may not be applicable now (Con an Lab MPs used to be much more different in background) (ii) it's wealth accumulation over whole life, not tenure as MP. I don't find it surprising - nor a bad thing - that having being an MP on your CV would lead to better opportunities in later life compared ot never being an MP
Key line "we find that serving in office almost doubled the wealth of Conservative MPs, but had no discernible financial benefits for Labour MPs."
Labour has 203 seats - to have a majority they need something like 322 (assuming Sinn Fein don't send MPs).
Where are those 119 seats, given Labours issues in Scotland (which previously sent 50+ labour MPs into Parliament) they just don't exist.
For political purposes Labour need to win about 119 seats for a majority. For betting purposes it needs to win (net) 122/3 - to be at 325/6.
This requires a Black Swan. About 26 of their top 150 targets are held by the SNP. Among their top 150 targets (statistically) are seats they will never win - Hexham for example, or Rushcliffe, or Macclesfield. All their top 150 are held by Tories or SNP.
Their Black Swan requires the following: SNP to lose ground to Labour The Tories to lose more or less the entire red wall The Tories to lose seats to Labour they have never lost in modern times, including in the south - such as Basingstoke.
While Labour leading the next government is easy - it's about a 50% chance - actually winning remains out of sight for now.
I don't agree with this at all. It's hardly a black swan when it happened 16 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 24 years ago. Fortunes change very quickly in politics, and it's very easy to imagine events that could precipitate such a changeover. Remember, Labour got where they are today. It's hardly beyond the realm of imagination to think the Conservatives can land themselves in a similar situation. A couple of white swans is easily enough to tip the electoral see-saw the other way.
Labour's problem remains Scotland. They simply can't win enough seats south of the wall to win a majority without it being a landslide win for them. I know those happen now and then but its not an obvious play to sit and wait to win swathes of leafy England again.
They need Scotland. And I cannot see how they get it back, at least not yet. All political parties falter eventually, but I don't see how the SNP landslide reverses bigly within the next 2 years.
Yes. To get the sort of landslide shift needed to have a majority of one, (let alone a working majority) Labour have a mountain to climb. In 1997 there were several relevant factors: the Tories had an insoluble problem with both political and moral reputation, like now only worse, in a world which was a generation more moral and less cynical than now. Much of Scotland was still Labour. And Labour had put the work into moderation, presentation and leadership at a level of genius which is miles away from Labour now. Labour still had heavyweight, bruising politicians in it. Compare with now...
Yep. Starmer no Blair. SNP unlikely to collapse completely, even if Conservatives self-destruct.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
If Sturgeon is still FM at the time of the next General Election, Labour have little chance in Scotland. She has Reagan levels qualities of Teflon attaching to her and a high personal vote.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Brown too increased Labour's voteshare in Scotland in 2010 unlike the rest of the UK.
Though absent an SNP collapse yes difficult to see Starmer making major progress there
Comments
Like other terms - fascist, technocrat, socialist, corruption, dictator - it's always at risk of misuse. That's just the nature of any pejorative political term.
Local MP changing mind now work has began, equally not news unless you are utterly stupid.
It's a punting view to die for. Can I have it please?
I'm stuck with Con maj and NOM both around 50%.
Indeed the latest poll this morning gives the Tories easily most seats under Boris and enough to continue in power with the DUP. A million miles from a 1997 style defeat.
Could I also please ask all the Labour or LD supporters on here who hate Boris to confirm and pledge they will all vote Tory if Sunak, Truss or Hunt replaces Boris?
As if you won't Tories should not care less what you think about Boris. Because the only thing that matters is holding most of the 2019 Tory voters who voted for Boris in 2019 when he won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 1987.
The opinions of those who will never vote Conservative anyway whether led by Boris or not led by Boris are irrelevant
And the rebuilding of Euston station is a £2bn project before you look at the cost of the track between OOC and Euston. I suspect if I went into detail that 6 miles works out at over £1bn per mile.
OOC is also the planned interchange for Crossrail. - Unless you need a station on the Victoria or Northern line it's likely to be an easier place to make your connection.
Words to live by!
Remember Nimbyism wins votes everywhere (as the Lib Dems will demonstrate in 2023/4).
It’s someone who does things that are popular irrespective of whether they are the best decision on the facts
Edit: Had a skim of the article - it is RD on whether elected or not, looking only at 'competitive' candidates. Potentially valid enough. A big caveat though - wealth is based on probate values, so only applies to MPs who have died. So, somewhat historical data and may depend in part on the backgrounds of the respective parties' MPs in that era. Although there's still the point that MPs who got elected did better than unsuccessful candidates. But maybe the Conservative party selected the 'right' kind of people for the more winnable seats...
Those are the floating voters. I have in fact voted Conservative a number of times and many of my friends are Conservatives, and I have contacts in Westminster.
The future for the tories under Boris Johnson is bleak. You will come to admit this in years to come so for now, if you wish to be one of the last to see sunlit uplands, that is of course your prerogative.
Labour led NOM government; 46%
I can think of possible bedfellows for Labour (SNP, LibDems, Plaid, Greens even some NI MPs), but who would support the Tories?
(BBC)...Ferrari driver Charles Leclerc, for example, pointed out that if what Verstappen did - running wide and forcing a driver who was ahead into the corner off the track to defend his position - goes by without penalty, then “overtaking on the outside is going to be very difficult”.
Leclerc, who lost a race victory to Verstappen in Austria in 2019 to one of these types of calls, when the Red Bull driver forced him off at Turn Three to take the lead, said: “Whatever the decision is I will adapt my driving to it, so I’m fine with both.”
And he said - as he said at the time - that he changed his driving for the next race after Verstappen got away with it. Which led directly to their intense scrap over many laps at the next race in Silverstone.
“As soon as I knew it wasn’t a penalty for max in Austria,” Leclerc said, “I came to Silverstone and I changed my driving. I think it’s a bit the same for every driver, we always try to race at the limit of what we are allowed to do and that’s what I will do in case these things are allowed.”
And McLaren have questions, too. In Austria this year, Lando Norris was given a five-second penalty for forcing Sergio Perez off the track. Team boss Andreas Seidl said: “Lando got a penalty in Austria for something that from our point of view was debatable. You can definitely argue that what happened in Austria was Lando’s corner, different from what we have seen in Brazil.
"So we are very interested in not necessarily the ruling of today but more understanding what (race director) Michael (Masi) will brief to the drivers in the briefing on how they see things moving forward. Because whatever the outcome is, it will definitely change the approach of the drivers to a certain manoeuvres on track.”...
It wouldn't surprise me if they let him off - and then threaten to penalise anyone who does the same...
Its very much like his position on 2nd jobs. He now says they shoud be banned even though he has benefited from having one over the past 5 years.
If you wish to offer interesting terms then I'd consider them.
Absent a complete disintegration of the SNP into competing parties, necessitating a snap Holyrood election at which Labour makes stunning gains, there simply isn't an opportunity for Labour to make such an advance before the next GE.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g8dunbfqqh/TheTimes_VI_211118_W.pdf
But for those with a sense of entitlement (aristocrats, trustafarians, single issue activists of every hue, academics, students, dogmatists et al) populism and populists must be bad of course. But that's a value, not a fact.
I have a feeling that the by-elections won't be good news for him, but we are straight into Xmas afterwards and recess, so the timing is pretty good.
'People like them', 'people like me' does capture something of that.
I don't put the likelihood as high as Philip, but there's value in laying Labour and - probably - in the Tory majority (I would put the probability of that > 36%). Only slight wobble on that is the complete ineptitude, political as well as policy, shown over the last few weeks.
I'm only on Con most seats and laying the Labour majority (both placed some time ago). I'm sticking with that, I think. If I didn't have any bets on next GE I'd be tempted by the Con majority. All those bets are against what I hope will happen, except maybe the Lab majority where I might still prefer a Lib-Lab coalition.
What seems to being forgotten, or ignored (IMHO anyway!) is that Boris is a good politician and, just at this moment, desperately needs a win, even if only in a sham fight. So I expect that, on Norn, he and Frost will talk very tough, make all sorts of threats and then when the EU has conceded some minor point crow about 'victory' over the brutal enemy.
Which line the Telegraph and Express will swallow whole, and which the BBC and the Mail will spend quite a lot of supportive time on.
And will push up the Tory percentage.
Whereas the Lords equivalent was well on top of that brief, and regularly warned ministers about the likely consequences.
@Anna_Soubry
·
2h
Listening to
@grantshapps on #Today it’s as if he’s taken a mind bending hallucinatory substance. Shapps is spinning the cancellation of #HS2 E leg & #HS3 as being better for passengers & investment/ levelling up than honouring the promise to deliver them both. The arrogance.
Whilst Old Oak Common is on paper a stupid idea, it really isn't when you consider how people travel once they arrive at the terminus. Almost everyone connects onward to somewhere else - by tube for which Euston isn't the best option. OOC would have been one stop from Paddington so not really adding much to the journey time and Crossrail; has much better opportunity to distribute passengers in high volume.
Anyway, its Euston now.
The Tories also colossal opportunities in splitting the centre left vote three (or in Scotland 4) ways. This can't be done reverse, unless by the time of the election Reform or whatever have got an act together.
For the sake of consistency with earlier decisions, that is what they ought to do. I suspect they might try to avoid it.
Hey, so the drums are beating a bit more for no big Art 16 shenanigans now, I see. No longer 'likely' but maybe still not quite 'unlikely'. What drama.
HS2 has been sold disastrously since the first 10 seconds of it's initial announcement. It increases capacity which will result in faster trains, but that capacity is never mentioned.
The parallels in the arguments are fascinating.
We've had this discussion many times and I think they should have gone the whole hog and built the connection to HS1 and installed customs/passport control at Brum/Man etc.
But do you really think Old Oak Common would have been better for passenger continuing on to Europe (clue: Crossrail does not go to Kings Cross St Pancras)?
As best as scientists can tell, Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago. But they did not vanish from the Earth entirely. In the past decade it has become clear that Neanderthals mated with the ancestors of modern humans, and that at least some of those unions produced viable offspring. The upshot is that almost half of the Neanderthal genome still survives, scattered in small quantities among almost all modern people’s dna. (The exception is those with mostly African ancestors, for Neanderthals seem never to have lived in Africa.)
Such genes have been associated with everything from hairiness to fat metabolism. Many seem to be related to the immune system, and to affect the risk of developing diseases including lupus, Crohn's and diabetes. A pair of recent papers suggest covid-19 belongs on that list as well. Two long sections of dna, both inherited from Neanderthals, appear to confer resistance or susceptibility to severe covid-19, depending on which is present.
The whole costs of both HS2 and NPR will now be additional to the total 96 billion announced and in view of his other high spending commitments on home insulation and green investment where is all this money coming from
It will be popular in metropolitan areas but these are already labour but with just 28% giving it the thumbs up yesterday it may not be the vote winner he thinks it is
Furthermore his opposition to HS2 is going to be played on repeat and has he thought how the Greens will react as he could lose supporters to the Greens
In politics nothing is as simple as it seems
Ditto tripling the capacity between Leeds and Manchester.
While voters in London want to keep the Birmingham-Leeds HS2 route by 29% to 23% as do voters in the North by 35% to 25%, voters in the Midlands and Wales back the government scrapping the Birmingham-Leeds HS2 route by 29% to 26% as do voters in the South by 29% to 23%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/11/18/98559/1
He's appeared to manage the anti-semitism crisis so that the Labour Party can mostly put it behind them.
He's started the process of finding the credible Labour members of a future government.
He's identified the correct strategic position for Labour on Brexit, so that they can attack the government on it and heal the Brexit divide: "Make Brexit Work".
He's done a decent job of the day-to-day business of Opposition to make the most of the government's troubles in the post-pandemic emergency period.
And yet, he's still a Hail Mary pass away from denying the Tories a majority at the next election. It's a very long road back from the nadir Labour reached in 2019.
So a Southampton & Portsmouth line straight into London, and another one coming from South Wales and Bristol. With all those lines offering either a direct service or an interchange in central london either to the North or down to Ebbsfleet / Ashford.
And of course at the Northern end Manchester should’ve been designed as a through station to Liverpool and Leeds from the start.
Would’ve cost a lot sure. But at least we’d have a useful national asset to show for all that tax we pay.
That said, it I don't think you can ignore the fact that it thrives when long standing grievances of a significant part of the electorate have no real representation in government over an extended period of time.
Hence both Brexit and the SNP, both of which could reasonably be described as populist.
Since 1980 you have seen massive outperformance of equities and property wages. So people with more wealth on becoming an MP are more likely to increase their wealth regardless of what they do as an MP.
Basically the analysis is meaningless
2. Boris gave a cast-iron guarantee that the Eastern leg of HS2 would be built. Yesterday he cancelled it.
3. Back in 2015 (when he first became an MP) Starmer opposed HS2 because of the impact it would have on his constituency.
4. Therefore 1. and 2. are Starmer's fault, not Boris's.
The Tories on here really are desperate today. Boris broke his promises yesterday, simple as.
But if she goes, then conceivably Central Belt voters may put (to some extent) the constitutional question to one side, and decide pragmatically that getting rid of the Tories at Westminster can best be achieved by voting Labour. Remember these areas used to deliver a titanic Labour vote and there remains a fair amount of goodwill towards the party.
Also, Starmer, personally, dour as he is, fits the Scottish psyche pretty well. The one part of the country where Theresa May played well in 2017 was Scotland (12 gains). Scots like dour politicians. Sir Keir may surprise us yet.
Better criticisms, imho, are:
(i) it's a very historical analysis (only MPs who had died when the study was done) so any differences between Labour and Con may not be applicable now (Con an Lab MPs used to be much more different in background)
(ii) it's wealth accumulation over whole life, not tenure as MP. I don't find it surprising - nor a bad thing - that having being an MP on your CV would lead to better opportunities in later life compared ot never being an MP
Though absent an SNP collapse yes difficult to see Starmer making major progress there