That's a 12% swing from Conservative to Labour on UNS and in marginal seats and with tactical voting, I would think any Conservative MP facing a Labour challenge and with a majority vulnerable to a 15-18% swing will be worried.
The CON-LD swing is a more modest 4.5% but with tactical voting by Labour supporters that could put any Conservative facing a Lib Dem challenger and having a majority vulnerable to a 10% swing could be under threat.
My personal view is Com Res has overcooked the Labour number slightly and undercooked the LD number slightly so a 9-10 point Labour lead with the LDs in low double digits looks more reasonable.
The real jeopardy for the Tories is the likely renaissance of tactical voting. Would be toxic for them even under the gerrymandered new boundaries which give them a ludicrous safety net.
Could work the other way, though.
Gerrymandering is brilliant at optimising your conversion of votes into seats- ideally, you want lots of tight wins, and your opponent to waste lots of votes in ubersafe seats and near-misses.
Downisde is that, if you overestimate your total vote, you end up narrowly losing everywhere...
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
Walker On Wheels Wealth Of Wonders Week Of Welcome Widening Our Welcome Wings Over Washington Kite Club Wisdom, Opportunity, and Wealth Wonderful Opportunities Worth Wonderful Owner's Working Wonderful, Overwhelming, and Wild Wondrous Outrageous Will Why Opportunity Works Widening Our World Work On Words World Of Wonder Write On Workshop Wafer On Wafer The World Of Wildlife What's On Waitakere Window On the World Word Of the Week Writing Our World Walk Over Walls Warrior Orientation Week Week Of War Winning Our World Woman Ordinance Worker Wider Opportunities for Women Wonders Of Wetlands Woodsmen Of the World Windows On Windows Walk On Wednesdays Washington Open Walkers Whipem Out Wednesdays White Oak Wonders Win On Win Winner Over Weight Winners On Wheels Woman On Water Women Of the Wall Women Of Wrestling Women On Wheels Wonders On Wheels Wordgames One Website World Of Wheels World Of Wrestling Wrestler Of the Week Watching Outstanding Wildcats Working On Wisdom
WOW is the punchline to a joke about someone with a W tattooed on each buttock.
Walker On Wheels Wealth Of Wonders Week Of Welcome Widening Our Welcome Wings Over Washington Kite Club Wisdom, Opportunity, and Wealth Wonderful Opportunities Worth Wonderful Owner's Working Wonderful, Overwhelming, and Wild Wondrous Outrageous Will Why Opportunity Works Widening Our World Work On Words World Of Wonder Write On Workshop Wafer On Wafer The World Of Wildlife What's On Waitakere Window On the World Word Of the Week Writing Our World Walk Over Walls Warrior Orientation Week Week Of War Winning Our World Woman Ordinance Worker Wider Opportunities for Women Wonders Of Wetlands Woodsmen Of the World Windows On Windows Walk On Wednesdays Washington Open Walkers Whipem Out Wednesdays White Oak Wonders Win On Win Winner Over Weight Winners On Wheels Woman On Water Women Of the Wall Women Of Wrestling Women On Wheels Wonders On Wheels Wordgames One Website World Of Wheels World Of Wrestling Wrestler Of the Week Watching Outstanding Wildcats Working On Wisdom
Offshore it means Waiting on Weather which is a joy for all the crew.
Offshore I thought it was Wanking over Weathergirls.
Walker On Wheels Wealth Of Wonders Week Of Welcome Widening Our Welcome Wings Over Washington Kite Club Wisdom, Opportunity, and Wealth Wonderful Opportunities Worth Wonderful Owner's Working Wonderful, Overwhelming, and Wild Wondrous Outrageous Will Why Opportunity Works Widening Our World Work On Words World Of Wonder Write On Workshop Wafer On Wafer The World Of Wildlife What's On Waitakere Window On the World Word Of the Week Writing Our World Walk Over Walls Warrior Orientation Week Week Of War Winning Our World Woman Ordinance Worker Wider Opportunities for Women Wonders Of Wetlands Woodsmen Of the World Windows On Windows Walk On Wednesdays Washington Open Walkers Whipem Out Wednesdays White Oak Wonders Win On Win Winner Over Weight Winners On Wheels Woman On Water Women Of the Wall Women Of Wrestling Women On Wheels Wonders On Wheels Wordgames One Website World Of Wheels World Of Wrestling Wrestler Of the Week Watching Outstanding Wildcats Working On Wisdom
Offshore it means Waiting on Weather which is a joy for all the crew.
Offshore I thought it was Wanking over Weathergirls.
I thought the key thing about weathergirls was that they foretold a good blow?
David Davis when interviewed this morning said even he hadn't put a letter in yet, some waffle about waiting for 3 days after the release of the FULL report before making any decision and the summary released yesterday doesn't count as the full report.
Walker On Wheels Wealth Of Wonders Week Of Welcome Widening Our Welcome Wings Over Washington Kite Club Wisdom, Opportunity, and Wealth Wonderful Opportunities Worth Wonderful Owner's Working Wonderful, Overwhelming, and Wild Wondrous Outrageous Will Why Opportunity Works Widening Our World Work On Words World Of Wonder Write On Workshop Wafer On Wafer The World Of Wildlife What's On Waitakere Window On the World Word Of the Week Writing Our World Walk Over Walls Warrior Orientation Week Week Of War Winning Our World Woman Ordinance Worker Wider Opportunities for Women Wonders Of Wetlands Woodsmen Of the World Windows On Windows Walk On Wednesdays Washington Open Walkers Whipem Out Wednesdays White Oak Wonders Win On Win Winner Over Weight Winners On Wheels Woman On Water Women Of the Wall Women Of Wrestling Women On Wheels Wonders On Wheels Wordgames One Website World Of Wheels World Of Wrestling Wrestler Of the Week Watching Outstanding Wildcats Working On Wisdom
Offshore it means Waiting on Weather which is a joy for all the crew.
Offshore I thought it was Wanking over Weathergirls.
David Davis when interviewed this morning said even he hadn't put a letter in yet, some waffle about waiting for 3 days after the release of the FULL report before making any decision and the summary released yesterday doesn't count as the full report.
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
"Cummings went on to give a scathing assessment of the prime minister’s capacity for truthfulness. Writing on his Substack, he said: “People also underestimate the extent to which he lies to literally everybody literally all day – including to Carrie and about Carrie.
“‘Lies’ isn’t even a useful word with him – he lives inside a fog of invention and ‘believes’ whatever he has to in the moment. E.g He both knows he’s lying about the parties AND thinks he did nothing wrong. This doesn’t make ‘sense’ unless you’ve watched him carefully or similar sociopaths.”
David Davis when interviewed this morning said even he hadn't put a letter in yet, some waffle about waiting for 3 days after the release of the FULL report before making any decision and the summary released yesterday doesn't count as the full report.
It just demonstrates what a preening show pony he is - big demonstration for the cameras demanding Boris “go” but doesn’t have the brains or the balls to actually do something that can effect the result he wants.
Maybe he’s waiting for a cabinet position from Boris, or ambassador to Easter Island.
"Cummings went on to give a scathing assessment of the prime minister’s capacity for truthfulness. Writing on his Substack, he said: “People also underestimate the extent to which he lies to literally everybody literally all day – including to Carrie and about Carrie.
“‘Lies’ isn’t even a useful word with him – he lives inside a fog of invention and ‘believes’ whatever he has to in the moment. E.g He both knows he’s lying about the parties AND thinks he did nothing wrong. This doesn’t make ‘sense’ unless you’ve watched him carefully or similar sociopaths.”
Has Cummings ever shown the necessary talent for introspection that last would require?
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
Call me Dr Suspicious, but do I get the distinct feeling you are unimpressed with it?
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I'm not even sure how much they objectively "favour the Tories", as opposed to favouring Labour less than the current ones.
Removing a bias isn't the same as introducing a bias.
I presume somebody has mentioned Starmer / Savile smear and return of Lynton Crosby are obviously totally unrelated.
He’s only doing telephone advice.
“Cripes Lynton, I’m in a fix.” “Strewth. Not again. Have you tried a dead cat?” “I fling a dead cat onto the table every day, Lynton. I need a deader cat. A bigger ex-pussy, if you will.” “Bloody Norah! Well, you need to smear Keir by association. Who’s the biggest, most evil arsehole you can think of?” “Piers Morgan.” “No, I mean an actual criminal. A sex pest.” “Rob Roberts MP. Bloody decent chap, actually.” “Never heard of him. Don’t you have a British equivalent to, I don’t know, Rolf Harris?”
The CPS website has just this to say about the DPP - the DPP is Max Hill QC. It says nothing about the DPP's responsibilities.
The gov.uk website says - the CPS has its own website. And says nothing about the DPP's responsibilities.
So I went to Wiki..
It says - "The DPP is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), with personal responsibility for its 7,000 staff and approximately 800,000 prosecutions undertaken by it every year."
I know Boris's insinuation yesterday was dishonest (though what he actually said "you failed to prosecute Savile" was true, hence Speaker's response - Boris never said "you protected Savile" as Nick Robinson insisted he had when interviewing Raab this morning); he was trying to smear Starmer and get people talking about that instead.
I know Starmer followed all the rules as DPP in not challenging the decision of Surrey's prosecutor (prosecutrix? Portia Ragnauth, I think) to not charge Savile. And I expect she followed the existing guidance in coming to her decision.
But...
Could the DPP not have taken an exceptional look into the possible prosecution of one the most high profile celebrity Brits of his time who'd been accused of some horrible crimes by four unconnected women?
Could he not himself have contacted the four women to tell them that three other women were making similar accusations, or got Ragnauth or somebody he could trust in the police to do it?
If he couldn't, what's the point in a DPP except to apologise when things have already gone wrong?
I don't blame Starmer at all for not doing this, but I think he does blame himself. It seems from poor Paul Gambaccini's experience that Starmer believed he'd messed up with Saville and overcompensated with further unfortunate consequences.
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Levelling Up died when they scrapped HS2E and NPR.
From now on it's empty slogans to hide the lack of meaningful changes or any spending of money.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
Call me Dr Suspicious, but do I get the distinct feeling you are unimpressed with it?
I will wait for the full report; but so far, no. I like the fact that it sets a close-ish target (ie 2030), but the measures look very weak to me.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
I will never not get excited when they find Ancient Greek or Roman helmets etc!
Again apologies for O/T!
I love the fact that
The March of the Ten Thousand, described in the Anabasis of Xenophon, led the Greek mercenaries through the wild and trackless terrain of eastern Anatolia on their flight from the Persians after losing the battle of Cunaxa. The location of the ford at which the Greeks crossed the Botan, a tributary of the Tigris, from east to west can be established on the basis of Xenophon's account. A Boeotian helmet found in the Tigris in 1854 is the only archaeological evidence of this historical event.
"Only" is a bit mean though, how lucky, how often do they expect to get?
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
That's the kind of shit that lumbered Labour with the Jezaster.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
I will never not get excited when they find Ancient Greek or Roman helmets etc!
Again apologies for O/T!
I love the fact that
The March of the Ten Thousand, described in the Anabasis of Xenophon, led the Greek mercenaries through the wild and trackless terrain of eastern Anatolia on their flight from the Persians after losing the battle of Cunaxa. The location of the ford at which the Greeks crossed the Botan, a tributary of the Tigris, from east to west can be established on the basis of Xenophon's account. A Boeotian helmet found in the Tigris in 1854 is the only archaeological evidence of this historical event.
"Only" is a bit mean though, how lucky, how often do they expect to get?
I am looking forward to watching a documentary on BBC4 in a year’s time where ex Prime Minister Boris Johnson follows his true passion of classical history and his Turkish roots and follows the March of the Ten Thousand…….
Part 1 of a three part series of ex ministers presenting on matters key to them.
Part 2. Priti Patel on Idi Amin - his influence on Law and Order and good domestic order in Uganda.
Part 3. Jacob Rees-Mogg on Ventriloquist dummies - do they have a soul or are they just wooden objects with a hand up their arse repeating what someone else is making them say.
The polling, when combined with the leader ratings, indicates two things, surely. That BJ has become less popular is self-evident. But it also looks now as if, slowly but surely, Starmer is becoming more popular, and fewer ex-Tories are sliding towards Lib Dem/Greens. BJ's demise won't surprise anybody. But the latter will surprise those who wrote Starmer off, and worry quite a few Tories.
Amazing to think that, just six months ago, most distinguished commentators had written Starmer off as a dud. Some (e.g. me, for example) always argued that he should be given at least two years to prove himself (or not). Still two months to go to that milestone.
How commentators have 'rated' Starmer at various points has really exposed a lot of punditry as just filling a vacuum. He was overpriced early on simply for not being Jeremy Corbyn - when anyone could see Labour had deeper issues to resolve than just getting rid of a toxic leader. Then greatly underpriced when he essentially had the same strengths and weaknesses, had by and large done some of the most awkward stuff to get the party back to sense, and though was lagging in the polls due to the vaccine bounce that slowly unwinded, his leader ratings were pretty similar to David Cameron's. Of course his current rise in popularity is largely due to the contrast with his opponent (and the gifts he gives him to do things that showcase his strengths) but that's because he's neither an early period Blair or a dud. He's pretty good in a reliable kind of way. And that's sometimes all you need. Blair may be the exception among successful opposition leaders in enjoying huge popularity - in part because he didn't arrive in a leadership contest after a defeat and was very much able to sell himself with little baggage. Cameron tried to do a Tory version but could never convincingly pull off the trick because he didn't really believe it and didn't ultimately want to challenge the more antediluvian elements in his party over core beliefs on the big issues. Thatcher had mediocre ratings in parliament before winning. The truth is, we want narrative stories of heroes and villains, genius and stupidity, so depending on the polls he was either useless or doing great (even while not ahead), but really he was doing roughly fine, gets the fundamentals right and whether or not he becomes will largely depend on the state of the government. And they look in real trouble because they've paddled one way to create a coalition of voters Johnson may now have blown up, and seem unable to properly course-correct because their whole strategy involved writing off swathes of the electorate by design to appeal to a plurality who may not be quite as loyal and defined by culture wars and Brexit as they'd like.
MMR vaccination uptake at 10-year low as parents avoid burdening NHS (Telegraph)
Kids doing their bit to save the NHS.
Don’t blame the kids. Blame Andrew Wakefield. And possibly Tony Blair a bit.
FFS, not blaming kids.
Apologies, but that’s how I read your post.
You're an academic, no? I prescribe a remedial course in literacy.
How are we meant to interpret “kids doing their bit to save the NHS”? I must be having a thick night then.
Edit: It occurs you were being literal about doing their bit by staying away. If that’s what you meant then sorry, but I assumed it was sarcasm about anti vax.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I'm not even sure how much they objectively "favour the Tories", as opposed to favouring Labour less than the current ones.
Removing a bias isn't the same as introducing a bias.
That simply isn't true. On equal votes, the Tories win more seats. They do now, they will on the new boundaries, too. So they favour the Tories. But that isn't bias. Merely a function of the current distribution of votes.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
Corbyn lost a VOC amongst his MPs in 2016 and cracked on regardless for a further 3 years
No sane individual with any dignity is going to want to “help” Boris Johnson. Not with his track record of not telling the truth and throwing people under the bus
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
Corbyn lost a VOC amongst his MPs in 2016 and cracked on regardless for a further 3 years
And that was not in any way pretty wacky nor utterly bonkers?
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
Corbyn lost a VOC amongst his MPs in 2016 and cracked on regardless for a further 3 years
The polling, when combined with the leader ratings, indicates two things, surely. That BJ has become less popular is self-evident. But it also looks now as if, slowly but surely, Starmer is becoming more popular, and fewer ex-Tories are sliding towards Lib Dem/Greens. BJ's demise won't surprise anybody. But the latter will surprise those who wrote Starmer off, and worry quite a few Tories.
Amazing to think that, just six months ago, most distinguished commentators had written Starmer off as a dud. Some (e.g. me, for example) always argued that he should be given at least two years to prove himself (or not). Still two months to go to that milestone.
How commentators have 'rated' Starmer at various points has really exposed a lot of punditry as just filling a vacuum. He was overpriced early on simply for not being Jeremy Corbyn - when anyone could see Labour had deeper issues to resolve than just getting rid of a toxic leader. Then greatly underpriced when he essentially had the same strengths and weaknesses, had by and large done some of the most awkward stuff to get the party back to sense, and though was lagging in the polls due to the vaccine bounce that slowly unwinded, his leader ratings were pretty similar to David Cameron's. Of course his current rise in popularity is largely due to the contrast with his opponent (and the gifts he gives him to do things that showcase his strengths) but that's because he's neither an early period Blair or a dud. He's pretty good in a reliable kind of way. And that's sometimes all you need. Blair may be the exception among successful opposition leaders in enjoying huge popularity - in part because he didn't arrive in a leadership contest after a defeat and was very much able to sell himself with little baggage. Cameron tried to do a Tory version but could never convincingly pull off the trick because he didn't really believe it and didn't ultimately want to challenge the more antediluvian elements in his party over core beliefs on the big issues. Thatcher had mediocre ratings in parliament before winning. The truth is, we want narrative stories of heroes and villains, genius and stupidity, so depending on the polls he was either useless or doing great (even while not ahead), but really he was doing roughly fine, gets the fundamentals right and whether or not he becomes will largely depend on the state of the government. And they look in real trouble because they've paddled one way to create a coalition of voters Johnson may now have blown up, and seem unable to properly course-correct because their whole strategy involved writing off swathes of the electorate by design to appeal to a plurality who may not be quite as loyal and defined by culture wars and Brexit as they'd like.
To my mind, the really big change in the last month has been the strengthening of the Labour front bench. Streeting in particular, but a number of the new shadow ministers are just looking, acting and speaking like a government in waiting that even Starmer's previous shadow cabinet didn't manage.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
There's a certain logic to that; however, it wouldn't take very long for the good people of Lincolnshire West to discover that it took 247,000 votes to elect their MP, whereas the honourable member for Edmonton Church St was returned with 650. And that two thirds of the seats in Parliament were now within the boundaries of Greater London.
Exaggerated somewhat for comic effect, but you get the general idea. I'm very sympathetic to the plight of young voters in what increasingly resembles a gerontocracy, but if they can't be arsed to register to vote then they're asking for trouble.
Ah yes, from the 'new department/law to solve X' school of political problems. When you don't need to announce a new post/group, you just need policies and use what you have.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
Who turns down an exciting opportunity to be a future scapegoat?
I don’t know, it’s a bit like being the Watford manager, you take the job and if you succeed then it’s all good and if you don’t you get a nice pay-off and walk away through the revolving door and everyone blames the owners not you. Nice pay-off and everyone knows you were trying to fix the unfixable.
America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.
The polling, when combined with the leader ratings, indicates two things, surely. That BJ has become less popular is self-evident. But it also looks now as if, slowly but surely, Starmer is becoming more popular, and fewer ex-Tories are sliding towards Lib Dem/Greens. BJ's demise won't surprise anybody. But the latter will surprise those who wrote Starmer off, and worry quite a few Tories.
Amazing to think that, just six months ago, most distinguished commentators had written Starmer off as a dud. Some (e.g. me, for example) always argued that he should be given at least two years to prove himself (or not). Still two months to go to that milestone.
How commentators have 'rated' Starmer at various points has really exposed a lot of punditry as just filling a vacuum. He was overpriced early on simply for not being Jeremy Corbyn - when anyone could see Labour had deeper issues to resolve than just getting rid of a toxic leader. Then greatly underpriced when he essentially had the same strengths and weaknesses, had by and large done some of the most awkward stuff to get the party back to sense, and though was lagging in the polls due to the vaccine bounce that slowly unwinded, his leader ratings were pretty similar to David Cameron's. Of course his current rise in popularity is largely due to the contrast with his opponent (and the gifts he gives him to do things that showcase his strengths) but that's because he's neither an early period Blair or a dud. He's pretty good in a reliable kind of way. And that's sometimes all you need. Blair may be the exception among successful opposition leaders in enjoying huge popularity - in part because he didn't arrive in a leadership contest after a defeat and was very much able to sell himself with little baggage. Cameron tried to do a Tory version but could never convincingly pull off the trick because he didn't really believe it and didn't ultimately want to challenge the more antediluvian elements in his party over core beliefs on the big issues. Thatcher had mediocre ratings in parliament before winning. The truth is, we want narrative stories of heroes and villains, genius and stupidity, so depending on the polls he was either useless or doing great (even while not ahead), but really he was doing roughly fine, gets the fundamentals right and whether or not he becomes will largely depend on the state of the government. And they look in real trouble because they've paddled one way to create a coalition of voters Johnson may now have blown up, and seem unable to properly course-correct because their whole strategy involved writing off swathes of the electorate by design to appeal to a plurality who may not be quite as loyal and defined by culture wars and Brexit as they'd like.
I commend my Towering Inferno metaphor to the House. Boris started off in the 150th floor penthouse and has descended to the basement. SKS is a boring accountant who has never left his office on the 7th floor. Simply by staying put he is now a neck-breaking height above Boris, without having to do anything
Actually he has done something. His HoC speech yesterday was masterly.
If simply creating a new minister for something did any good then Johnson could just appoint a Minister for Everyone Becoming an Instantaneous Dollar Billionaire and, lo, all of our problems would be over.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.
NY Times
Alternatively, if international investors are willing to lend such a prodigious amount, and at such low returns in the last n years, then that is evidence of great confidence in the future prospects of the American economy.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
If simply creating a new minister for something did any good then Johnson could just appoint a Minister for Everyone Becoming an Instantaneous Dollar Billionaire and, lo, all of our problems would be over.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
Yep. Every hour virtually we have another desperate made-up-on-spur-of-moment idea and policy thrown at the backbenchers to see if that will stall the letter writing.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
I placed £5 on a labour majority just this afternoon. The incumbents have the stink of 1997 about them, coupled to the incoming financial stresses for folk, and Covid, sadly, will be with us for a long time to come.
America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.
NY Times
I have to admit that, despite my general right wing leanings, I do believe in MMT. Who essentially is going to call in the debt?
The polling, when combined with the leader ratings, indicates two things, surely. That BJ has become less popular is self-evident. But it also looks now as if, slowly but surely, Starmer is becoming more popular, and fewer ex-Tories are sliding towards Lib Dem/Greens. BJ's demise won't surprise anybody. But the latter will surprise those who wrote Starmer off, and worry quite a few Tories.
Amazing to think that, just six months ago, most distinguished commentators had written Starmer off as a dud. Some (e.g. me, for example) always argued that he should be given at least two years to prove himself (or not). Still two months to go to that milestone.
How commentators have 'rated' Starmer at various points has really exposed a lot of punditry as just filling a vacuum. He was overpriced early on simply for not being Jeremy Corbyn - when anyone could see Labour had deeper issues to resolve than just getting rid of a toxic leader. Then greatly underpriced when he essentially had the same strengths and weaknesses, had by and large done some of the most awkward stuff to get the party back to sense, and though was lagging in the polls due to the vaccine bounce that slowly unwinded, his leader ratings were pretty similar to David Cameron's. Of course his current rise in popularity is largely due to the contrast with his opponent (and the gifts he gives him to do things that showcase his strengths) but that's because he's neither an early period Blair or a dud. He's pretty good in a reliable kind of way. And that's sometimes all you need. Blair may be the exception among successful opposition leaders in enjoying huge popularity - in part because he didn't arrive in a leadership contest after a defeat and was very much able to sell himself with little baggage. Cameron tried to do a Tory version but could never convincingly pull off the trick because he didn't really believe it and didn't ultimately want to challenge the more antediluvian elements in his party over core beliefs on the big issues. Thatcher had mediocre ratings in parliament before winning. The truth is, we want narrative stories of heroes and villains, genius and stupidity, so depending on the polls he was either useless or doing great (even while not ahead), but really he was doing roughly fine, gets the fundamentals right and whether or not he becomes will largely depend on the state of the government. And they look in real trouble because they've paddled one way to create a coalition of voters Johnson may now have blown up, and seem unable to properly course-correct because their whole strategy involved writing off swathes of the electorate by design to appeal to a plurality who may not be quite as loyal and defined by culture wars and Brexit as they'd like.
I commend my Towering Inferno metaphor to the House. Boris started off in the 150th floor penthouse and has descended to the basement. SKS is a boring accountant who has never left his office on the 7th floor. Simply by staying put he is now a neck-breaking height above Boris, without having to do anything
Actually he has done something. His HoC speech yesterday was masterly.
David Davis when interviewed this morning said even he hadn't put a letter in yet, some waffle about waiting for 3 days after the release of the FULL report before making any decision and the summary released yesterday doesn't count as the full report.
Why would he go full Leo Amery if he wasn't even sending his own letter in?
I'm sure my own thought processes must look strange to others at times, but that's very strange.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
I placed £5 on a labour majority just this afternoon. The incumbents have the stink of 1997 about them, coupled to the incoming financial stresses for folk, and Covid, sadly, will be with us for a long time to come.
That’s fair enough. I happen to think that won’t happen because the Tories have managed to make this an issue about Johnson than their wider brand whereas Labour - to many - is still tainted. But at least you have bet something….
David Davis when interviewed this morning said even he hadn't put a letter in yet, some waffle about waiting for 3 days after the release of the FULL report before making any decision and the summary released yesterday doesn't count as the full report.
Why would he go full Leo Amery if he wasn't even sending his own letter in?
I'm sure my own thought processes must look strange to others at times, but that's very strange.
Narcissist. Bride at every wedding, corpse at every funeral. Where's the fun in being 1 in 54 anonymous letter writers?
That's a 12% swing from Conservative to Labour on UNS and in marginal seats and with tactical voting, I would think any Conservative MP facing a Labour challenge and with a majority vulnerable to a 15-18% swing will be worried.
The CON-LD swing is a more modest 4.5% but with tactical voting by Labour supporters that could put any Conservative facing a Lib Dem challenger and having a majority vulnerable to a 10% swing could be under threat.
My personal view is Com Res has overcooked the Labour number slightly and undercooked the LD number slightly so a 9-10 point Labour lead with the LDs in low double digits looks more reasonable.
The real jeopardy for the Tories is the likely renaissance of tactical voting. Would be toxic for them even under the gerrymandered new boundaries which give them a ludicrous safety net.
The boundaries are not gerrymandered - they were prepared by an independent commission. Of course they took representations from parties but that was only one factor in their analysis
Were a Conservative leader to lose the vote, they would have to resign and a leadership election would be triggered. The resigning leader can’t stand in that election. The winner would become the new leader of the Conservative party and, as they are currently in government, also Prime Minister of the UK.
What happens if the leader in that situation doesn't resign? The party constitution is silent on the matter of VONCs, the rules of which therefore are presumably just decided by the 1922 Committee.
The 1922 committee do have form in making up the rules as they go along. In 2016, after it was whittled down to May and Leadsom to go to the members, Leadsom withdrew after her 'mother' comments a few days later. The rules didn't cover a withdrawal at this stage (I don't think). There was talk that May should still go to the membership with a simple: "Yes/No" option (though no one knew what would happen if the members voted No); there was also talk that third place (Gove?) should be readmitted and the final two be May v Gove.
None of the above happened. The 1922 committee simply declared May the winner, don't ask any questions and that was that.
So the 1922 committee do make up rules to suit them. I think they mostly wanted May, so didn't want to chance it not being her, so they just declared her the winner and that was that. You can bet if they didn't like May (but preferred Gove), they'd have said that the contest would be May v Gove.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
I placed £5 on a labour majority just this afternoon. The incumbents have the stink of 1997 about them, coupled to the incoming financial stresses for folk, and Covid, sadly, will be with us for a long time to come.
That’s fair enough. I happen to think that won’t happen because the Tories have managed to make this an issue about Johnson than their wider brand whereas Labour - to many - is still tainted. But at least you have bet something….
I think for non geeks like us, Brexit is over, despite what @Gardenwalker and @Scott_P say. To the man in the street, it’s done. So that coalition from 2019 crumbles. Once again the Torres have forgotten to keep the veneer of decency about them and let the money grabbing, I’m all right jack nature through. I may wrong and Scotland may stymy a majority, but I think there has to be a chance.
Comments
44% for Labour is epochal if other pollsters show something similar.
Coupled with the supplementaries on leadership then Starmer is on course for government if Boris Johnson remains leader.
Top story from @breeallegretti @rowenamason @peterwalker99
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/boris-johnson-attended-leaving-do-during-strict-january-lockdown
"Under-fire Boris Flees To Ukraine"
https://twitter.com/MetroUKNews/status/1488623488348962820?s=20&t=yGITV200BNzeUjrOrRyxsw
https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/02/01/magna-graecia-helmets-greeks/?amp
I will never not get excited when they find Ancient Greek or Roman helmets etc!
Again apologies for O/T!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/boris-johnson-attended-leaving-do-during-strict-january-lockdown
https://youtu.be/PUfJhwVXVMA
“‘Lies’ isn’t even a useful word with him – he lives inside a fog of invention and ‘believes’ whatever he has to in the moment. E.g He both knows he’s lying about the parties AND thinks he did nothing wrong. This doesn’t make ‘sense’ unless you’ve watched him carefully or similar sociopaths.”
Kids doing their bit to save the NHS.
Maybe he’s waiting for a cabinet position from Boris, or ambassador to Easter Island.
They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient.
But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever.
It wasn't pre-2010.
If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
Removing a bias isn't the same as introducing a bias.
“Cripes Lynton, I’m in a fix.”
“Strewth. Not again. Have you tried a dead cat?”
“I fling a dead cat onto the table every day, Lynton. I need a deader cat. A bigger ex-pussy, if you will.”
“Bloody Norah! Well, you need to smear Keir by association. Who’s the biggest, most evil arsehole you can think of?”
“Piers Morgan.”
“No, I mean an actual criminal. A sex pest.”
“Rob Roberts MP. Bloody decent chap, actually.”
“Never heard of him. Don’t you have a British equivalent to, I don’t know, Rolf Harris?”
Etc.
The gov.uk website says - the CPS has its own website. And says nothing about the DPP's responsibilities.
So I went to Wiki..
It says - "The DPP is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), with personal responsibility for its 7,000 staff and approximately 800,000 prosecutions undertaken by it every year."
I know Boris's insinuation yesterday was dishonest (though what he actually said "you failed to prosecute Savile" was true, hence Speaker's response - Boris never said "you protected Savile" as Nick Robinson insisted he had when interviewing Raab this morning); he was trying to smear Starmer and get people talking about that instead.
I know Starmer followed all the rules as DPP in not challenging the decision of Surrey's prosecutor (prosecutrix? Portia Ragnauth, I think) to not charge Savile. And I expect she followed the existing guidance in coming to her decision.
But...
Could the DPP not have taken an exceptional look into the possible prosecution of one the most high profile celebrity Brits of his time who'd been accused of some horrible crimes by four unconnected women?
Could he not himself have contacted the four women to tell them that three other women were making similar accusations, or got Ragnauth or somebody he could trust in the police to do it?
If he couldn't, what's the point in a DPP except to apologise when things have already gone wrong?
I don't blame Starmer at all for not doing this, but I think he does blame himself. It seems from poor Paul Gambaccini's experience that Starmer believed he'd messed up with Saville and overcompensated with further unfortunate consequences.
Is this explainer still fully current.
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary
- rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
I like the fact that it sets a close-ish target (ie 2030), but the measures look very weak to me.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
The March of the Ten Thousand, described in the Anabasis of Xenophon, led the Greek mercenaries through the wild and trackless terrain of eastern Anatolia on their flight from the Persians after losing the battle of Cunaxa. The location of the ford at which the Greeks crossed the Botan, a tributary of the Tigris, from east to west can be established on the basis of Xenophon's account. A Boeotian helmet found in the Tigris in 1854 is the only archaeological evidence of this historical event.
"Only" is a bit mean though, how lucky, how often do they expect to get?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286828607_Xenophon's_crossing_of_the_kentrites_-_An_archaeological_appendix
The very top of the civil service, the highest fliers, now don't want to soil the rest of their careers by being anywhere near the lying charlatan.
FFS, just do it already
https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf
The incoming PM used to kiss hands, but iirc that is now old fashioned and not actually done.
Part 1 of a three part series of ex ministers presenting on matters key to them.
Part 2. Priti Patel on Idi Amin - his influence on Law and Order and good domestic order in Uganda.
Part 3. Jacob Rees-Mogg on Ventriloquist dummies - do they have a soul or are they just wooden objects with a hand up their arse repeating what someone else is making them say.
Edit: It occurs you were being literal about doing their bit by staying away. If that’s what you meant then sorry, but I assumed it was sarcasm about anti vax.
So they favour the Tories.
But that isn't bias. Merely a function of the current distribution of votes.
Exaggerated somewhat for comic effect, but you get the general idea. I'm very sympathetic to the plight of young voters in what increasingly resembles a gerontocracy, but if they can't be arsed to register to vote then they're asking for trouble.
Yeah - my bad. Thought it was in there from when I looked when the May VONC was all the rage.
NY Times
Actually he has done something. His HoC speech yesterday was masterly.
A hapless patsy who will be put out to promote inadequate measures as if they are really forward looking gamechangers.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
Pathetic from the drowning man.
I'm sure my own thought processes must look strange to others at times, but that's very strange.
That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral.
As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it.
Not claim it is being rigged.
BREAKING: Whole day passes without new lockdown-busting party being uncovered at No 10.
In 2016, after it was whittled down to May and Leadsom to go to the members, Leadsom withdrew after her 'mother' comments a few days later.
The rules didn't cover a withdrawal at this stage (I don't think). There was talk that May should still go to the membership with a simple: "Yes/No" option (though no one knew what would happen if the members voted No); there was also talk that third place (Gove?) should be readmitted and the final two be May v Gove.
None of the above happened. The 1922 committee simply declared May the winner, don't ask any questions and that was that.
So the 1922 committee do make up rules to suit them. I think they mostly wanted May, so didn't want to chance it not being her, so they just declared her the winner and that was that. You can bet if they didn't like May (but preferred Gove), they'd have said that the contest would be May v Gove.