Sharp has resigned because he is found to have "inadvertently" (his defence) failed to disclose relevant potential conflicts of interest to the appointment panel. The Inquiry is not persuaded by his defence.
So, a shift away from dodgy appointments rather than a shift to the left, I think you'll find.
Indeed, all he had to do was follow the rules and not be an idiot about it. Is a failure to do that a right wing thing? I don't think it is, that's a rather pessimistic view of the right.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
'Only' 800 EU laws being repealed, what a ridiculous complaint. Things take time, and clearly they are working on it. Such a stupid promise to have made.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
If this is how well the right do with the national broadcaster while the Tories are in power, God knows what the BBC will be like when they lose.
Boris treated the trappings of power as a personal plaything Trump fashion, without any respect for balance or checks and balances on power - that’s the bottom line here.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
JBM is that rare thing - a data cruncher in the mainstream media who apparently prefers to get the truth rather than a desired answer and also seems to know what he's doing.
He's definitely worth reading. FT weekend edition is best journalism out there at the moment i think.
Yes it is, and on the rare weekends when I know I'll have a bit of sitting-down time I'll grab a copy from the newsagent. I still enjoy spreading the big broadsheet format out over the table and whatnot.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
The only thing I did for the world cup was flip on the last 30 minutes of the Final, when England were in it.
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
I will not watch 1 second of the parasite crowning.
Excitement really beginning to build now.
If you change your mind, Trafalgar Square is the best place to stand I think. See you there!
Or alternatively, another week another senior conservative steps down without the PM choosing factional idiocy to save them against what is the morally correct decision unlike under Johnson.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
The only thing I did for the world cup was flip on the last 30 minutes of the Final, when England were in it.
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
I will not watch 1 second of the parasite crowning.
Morning Malc. You will have your union flag bunting out though, right?
No doubt to be replaced by another card-carrying Tory placeman. And after months and months of prevarication in the face of facts that are no different to those revealed long ago by the Times. What took Sunak so long?
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
Corrupt BBC Chair resigns whilst claiming he did nothing wrong, classic. Not even an admission that even if it was inadvertent what he did was titanically stupid, since a child understands issues of potential conflict better than he did apparently.
Fully agree, except that there was nothing "potential" about it.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
Corbyn's legacy, unless you are BJO, in which case the scale of the defeat was down to anyone bar Corbyn.
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
It's the distinction between cities that are cities because of the cathedral, and cities that are cities because they're too big to be towns, I would think?
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
@severincarrell BREAKING Number 10 on brink of cancelling a Scottish press briefing with PM @RishiSunak in Glasgow - the first time a PM refuses to meet Scottish newspaper reporters 1/3
Number 10 tried to handpick 6 reporters from centre-right papers & @PA - @ScotParlJournos, including six invited titles, refuse to comply & insist all reporters have access 2/3
After TV reporters ask for one question to Sunak about Sharp resignation, No 10 demand TV cameras leave to do Sharp clip later. They then threaten to cancel press briefing entirely 3/3
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
If this is how well the right do with the national broadcaster while the Tories are in power, God knows what the BBC will be like when they lose.
Maybe they could have appointed someone who understood very basic concepts about openess and conflicts and they'd still be there?
Yes, Sharp (educated Merchant Taylor's School, fees £24k pa) is quitting because he forgot to mention how he helped Johnson (Eton, fees £46K pa) borrow 800k from Sam Blyth (Uppingham, fees £45k pa).
If he had just been given the job as a reward for giving £400k to the Conservative Party it would have been fine.
Pleased to report that, after a late (it seemed) start our nest-box has been occupied by a pair of blue-tits and the female is now sitting on at least eight eggs. Something to watch on daytime TV at last!
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
If this is how well the right do with the national broadcaster while the Tories are in power, God knows what the BBC will be like when they lose.
Maybe they could have appointed someone who understood very basic concepts about openess and conflicts and they'd still be there?
Yes, Sharp (educated Merchant Taylor's School, fees £14k pa) is quitting because he forgot to mention how he helped Johnson (Eton, fees £46K pa) borrow 800k from Sam Blyth (Uppingham, fees £45k pa).
If he had just been given the job as a reward for giving £400k to the Conservative Party it would have been fine.
The stench of entitlement around these people is hard to ignore. They've been in power for too long.
@severincarrell BREAKING Number 10 on brink of cancelling a Scottish press briefing with PM @RishiSunak in Glasgow - the first time a PM refuses to meet Scottish newspaper reporters 1/3
Number 10 tried to handpick 6 reporters from centre-right papers & @PA - @ScotParlJournos, including six invited titles, refuse to comply & insist all reporters have access 2/3
After TV reporters ask for one question to Sunak about Sharp resignation, No 10 demand TV cameras leave to do Sharp clip later. They then threaten to cancel press briefing entirely 3/3
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
@severincarrell BREAKING Number 10 on brink of cancelling a Scottish press briefing with PM @RishiSunak in Glasgow - the first time a PM refuses to meet Scottish newspaper reporters 1/3
Number 10 tried to handpick 6 reporters from centre-right papers & @PA - @ScotParlJournos, including six invited titles, refuse to comply & insist all reporters have access 2/3
After TV reporters ask for one question to Sunak about Sharp resignation, No 10 demand TV cameras leave to do Sharp clip later. They then threaten to cancel press briefing entirely 3/3
Corrupt BBC Chair resigns whilst claiming he did nothing wrong, classic. Not even an admission that even if it was inadvertent what he did was titanically stupid, since a child understands issues of potential conflict better than he did apparently.
Fully agree, except that there was nothing "potential" about it.
I'm required by my work to do training on the Bribery Act 2010 and I would say there's a "potential" infraction of that act, which comes with prison sentences attached.
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Lincoln Cathedral of course being the first to knock the pharoahs off their bloody perch by taking the title of world's tallest building off the hitherto unbeaten Great Pyramid.
UPDATE No 10 about to relent: @RishiSunak will take @ScotParlJournos questions after all, and a pooled TV clip - after *all* Scottish papers refuse invitation-only press conference
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
In this he is both politically maladroit, and wrong on the principle. Looking like LibDem for me, too.
Pleased to report that, after a late (it seemed) start our nest-box has been occupied by a pair of blue-tits and the female is now sitting on at least eight eggs. Something to watch on daytime TV at last!
We've got a few ducks with ducklings in the mill basin where we're doing up our new place. We're going through the daily trauma of trying to count up how many ducklings are left. One started with 12, we think she's down to 7 as of an hour ago. The rest seem to have lost only a couple each so far. There's a pair of swans guarding a nest just over from us on a small island. My wife has set her camera on a tripod and is like the expectant father. I can't get any work out of her!
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Labour remains well in the double digits, the Rishi approach can only take them so far when they have 13 years to defend. That is going to be a tall order for any Government.
Pleased to report that, after a late (it seemed) start our nest-box has been occupied by a pair of blue-tits and the female is now sitting on at least eight eggs. Something to watch on daytime TV at last!
Ours (disconnected by builders snipping the wire, since reconnected in theory) isn't talking to us, unfortunately (I'll have to take it to bits to fix, which I won't do until our current residents are finished in the summer). It's been fascinating to watch the successes and failures of the blue tits over the last six years - we've been lucky and had some in each year.
I loved 'even prettier than the Cotswolds' as if the Cotswolds is the gold standard of prettiness which no-one could imagine a thing prettier than. And the sentence 'I’d had no idea England had places quite this pretty' - as if the Lake District were some big secret no-one knew about. Fluff, but I'll still be clicking the next time MyLondon marvels at somewhere else I had become blase about. Nice to see your own backyard through someone else's eyes.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Pleased to report that, after a late (it seemed) start our nest-box has been occupied by a pair of blue-tits and the female is now sitting on at least eight eggs. Something to watch on daytime TV at last!
Ours (disconnected by builders snipping the wire, since reconnected in theory) isn't talking to us, unfortunately (I'll have to take it to bits to fix, which I won't do until our current residents are finished in the summer). It's been fascinating to watch the successes and failures of the blue tits over the last six years - we've been lucky and had some in each year.
We’ve had ours for some 15 years now, and as you say it’s fascinating to watch the comings and goings. However, at 15 years it might be time to replace, although it’s still sound
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
Which likely means no Labour majority ever again, which is why the Unions and Labour left generally oppose PR as much as the Tory right do.
Neither want the LDs to be Kingmakers most elections. PR would also see Labour leak votes to the Greens and the Tories leak votes to RefUK
Rishi Sunak still hasn’t turned up to a pre-planned media huddle in Glasgow.
His team is claiming the PM can only do one broadcast clip and take no other questions.
This is a total shambles.
And his government accuses the SNP of secrecy?
Takes his politics from Modi?
That seems an odd comment, on the face of it, OKC. Have I misunderstood - care to elaborate?
Comparison with the only other Hindu Head of Government. In a major nation anyway.
Seems a bit of an odd basis for comparison (unless policies are clearly dictated by religion). Although, I guess there are some parallels between Boris Johnson and Silvio Berlusconi, if we're comparing supposed Catholics
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
There must have been many a weary traveller far from home on the M25 whose spirits were raised by the distant sight of St Albans.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
Which likely means no Labour majority ever again, which is why the Unions and Labour left generally oppose PR as much as the Tory right do.
Neither want the LDs to be Kingmakers most elections. PR would also see Labour leak votes to the Greens and the Tories leak votes to RefUK
Indeed. Labour's opposition to PR is longstanding – Keir's comments are hardly surprising.
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
It's the distinction between cities that are cities because of the cathedral, and cities that are cities because they're too big to be towns, I would think?
I think it's a myth that a cathedral makes a town a city. There are several examples of Cathedrals in towns (like Southwell). I think it's just the fact that several hundred years ago the cathedrals would have been in the major settlements. Then the industrial revolution happened and geography changed.
Anyway, personally, as an atheist, I can't see a cathedral (or indeed any reasonably handsome church) without my spirits being raised. Little to do with any sort of spirituality - just the joy or a really big and beautiful thing.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Funny old world.
SKS is a self declared leftie (when seeking to be leader)
Also SKS by pissing off those that voted him as leader is doing anything he can to keep the Tories in power
Funny old World
Especially funny watching the increasing desperation of Centrists as Labour lead shrinks when long time Labour voters refuse to vote for the full weight wanker that is SKS who literally told them if they didnt like what he was doing theres the door
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
The only thing I did for the world cup was flip on the last 30 minutes of the Final, when England were in it.
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
I will not watch 1 second of the parasite crowning.
Morning Malc. You will have your union flag bunting out though, right?
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Funny old world.
SKS is a self declared leftie (when seeking to be leader)
Also SKS by pissing off those that voted him as leader is doing anything he can to keep the Tories in power
Funny old World
Especially funny watching the increasing desperation of Centrists as Labour lead shrinks when long time Labour voters refuse to vote for the full weight wanker that is SKS who literally told them if they didnt like what he was doing theres the door
Suspect many PBers will take your views with a pinch of salt given your support for that well-known socialist Boris Johnson.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
No, it's effectively a vote for PR. The assumption that one of the two largest parties deserves our vote solely because they are one of the two largest parties is contemptible and undemocratic.
As a Donny lad myself, I still chuckle at the idea of Doncaster being a 'city'. I know it technically is now, but it's the towniest city imaginable.
I wonder what exactly they are going to label as the 'city centre'?
'Tis a joke, really. It seemed to be yet another distraction from dealing with actual problems for the council.
Maybe someone wanted it on their CV.
In its favour, I think Donny was the second town in Yorkshire to get its royal charter (after York)*. It is pretty venerable. May not be much obvious history left but it's rather citier than Rotherham.
source: Whittaker's almanac, 1974, half-remembered from at least 20 years ago. May not be accurate but is not woefully inaccurate.
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
Conservative support in Brighton & Hove in 2019 was actually lower than in 1997. It's England's equivalent of San Francisco, politically.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
Slight caveat; the Lab-Con battleground is a relatively small fraction of the seats up for election this time. The seat count is dominated by the all-up elections in rural districts, where there are fewer voters per councillor and Labour often aren't in the running.
2019 was an excellent year for independents and local parties, who I suspect will fall back somewhat.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
Yes, I think for many of us a Lab-LD coalition would be by far the best outcome. The near 30 pp leads suggested Tory wipeout (and I don’t say that wouldn’t be served) and huge Labour majority. Thankfully, that’s now looking a lot less likely.
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
There must have been many a weary traveller far from home on the M25 whose spirits were raised by the distant sight of St Albans.
There's a great spot on the M11 when you can suddenly see London's cluster of skyscrapers on the horizon, always a welcome sight on a long drive home from the North.
As a Donny lad myself, I still chuckle at the idea of Doncaster being a 'city'. I know it technically is now, but it's the towniest city imaginable.
I wonder what exactly they are going to label as the 'city centre'?
'Tis a joke, really. It seemed to be yet another distraction from dealing with actual problems for the council.
Maybe someone wanted it on their CV.
In its favour, I think Donny was the second town in Yorkshire to get its royal charter (after York)*. It is pretty venerable. May not be much obvious history left but it's rather citier than Rotherham.
source: Whittaker's almanac, 1974, half-remembered from at least 20 years ago. May not be accurate but is not woefully inaccurate.
May well be true - it has a long history - but the character of the place is not really that of a city, even though you are right that Rotherham is even less of one.
It is a shame that very little remains of the Roman occupation.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Funny old world.
Then get the system bloody well changed. Frankly, if we're going to be stuck with FPTP, I'd prefer there to be no manifestos.
Because the Big Two run on either "Keep them out" or "Kick them out," and if you don't endorse one of them, you're regarded as effectively endorsing the other one.
Yet whoever wins a majority of the seat (on a sub-majority plurality of the vote) then pretends that all their votes were a direct endorsement of everything in their manifesto and claims everything in them is now democratically legitimate. So it'll be a little more honest to not claim that, thank you.
Of course, given that actual electoral competition is suppressed down to one shade of shit versus another shade of shit (as many people view them) we end up with "Vote for us or Corbyn gets in - oh, dear, you've now endorsed Johnson and a hard Brexit," or "Vote for us or Johnson stays in - oh dear, you've now endorsed Corby and whatever hard-left stuff he's come up with."
Neither Sunak nor Starmer really excite us, yet both of them want to fossilise the system of "If not him, then me." Free market competition is great for the Tories - right up until they have an effective monopoly in which case we can all sod off, they're in as the only alternative to Labour.
Fairness is great for Labour - right up until they have the ability to close down any option to move away from the Tories but themselves, in which case we can all sod off, they're the only option other than the Tories.
All of the "But FPTP is the way you get whoever you locally want as your representative," and "All votes reset to zero after the election and anyone can win," fly out of the window. Vote for us, or else (you're regarded as endorsing them).
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Funny old world.
SKS is a self declared leftie (when seeking to be leader)
Also SKS by pissing off those that voted him as leader is doing anything he can to keep the Tories in power
Funny old World
Especially funny watching the increasing desperation of Centrists as Labour lead shrinks when long time Labour voters refuse to vote for the full weight wanker that is SKS who literally told them if they didnt like what he was doing theres the door
Suspect many PBers will take your views with a pinch of salt given your support for that well-known socialist Boris Johnson.
ToryJohnOwls please explain.
As I say increasingly desperate Centrists ........
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Durham Cathedral is my favourite, followed by Wells.
I'm still giving it to Lincoln. Not so much even for the architecture fine though it is, but for that truly stunning setting.
I visited Wells Cathedral for the first time, a fortnight ago. It's stunning.
Out of Durham, Lincoln, Wells, Exeter, Ely, Winchester, Southwell, York, St. Paul's, St. Alban's, St. David's, I'd be hard pressed to choose.
Ely has a special place in my heart, because when I worked for Wood Green Animal Shelters, there was an annual service to which people took their dogs, who'd all start howling and barking along to the hymns.
Comments
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know....
Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE.
To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
If you change your mind, Trafalgar Square is the best place to stand I think. See you there!
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/12/best-places-to-watch-king-charles-iiis-coronation-procession-as-route-revealed-18592718/#:~:text=Trafalgar Square/Whitehall,way back to Buckingham Palace.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/27/coronation-big-screens-around-london-to-watch-the-event-for-free-18662559/
Has Diane Abbot resigned yet?
Trump (I) 23%
DeSantis (R) 22%
Ipsos
https://twitter.com/ElectsWorld/status/1651674763692064769?s=20
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
St David's, York, Canterbury,
Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
BREAKING Number 10 on brink of cancelling a Scottish press briefing with PM @RishiSunak in Glasgow - the first time a PM refuses to meet Scottish newspaper reporters 1/3
Number 10 tried to handpick 6 reporters from centre-right papers & @PA - @ScotParlJournos, including six invited titles, refuse to comply & insist all reporters have access 2/3
After TV reporters ask for one question to Sunak about Sharp resignation, No 10 demand TV cameras leave to do Sharp clip later. They then threaten to cancel press briefing entirely 3/3
All Scottish media now refusing No 10’s insistence only pooled clip allowed
Hiding in a fridge?
If he had just been given the job as a reward for giving £400k to the Conservative Party it would have been fine.
Something to watch on daytime TV at last!
Rishi Sunak still hasn’t turned up to a pre-planned media huddle in Glasgow.
His team is claiming the PM can only do one broadcast clip and take no other questions.
This is a total shambles.
And his government accuses the SNP of secrecy?
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
UPDATE No 10 about to relent: @RishiSunak will take @ScotParlJournos questions after all, and a pooled TV clip - after *all* Scottish papers refuse invitation-only press conference
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Looking like LibDem for me, too.
LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 27% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REF: 7% (-)
via
@YouGov
, 26 - 27 Apr
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
Get over yourself
Labour remains well in the double digits, the Rishi approach can only take them so far when they have 13 years to defend. That is going to be a tall order for any Government.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/other/i-visited-a-tiny-town-just-over-3-hours-from-london-that-s-even-prettier-than-the-cotswolds/ar-AA1ar6z4?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4c4afce7d5204da6b02441158355e0a7&ei=8
I loved 'even prettier than the Cotswolds' as if the Cotswolds is the gold standard of prettiness which no-one could imagine a thing prettier than. And the sentence 'I’d had no idea England had places quite this pretty' - as if the Lake District were some big secret no-one knew about.
Fluff, but I'll still be clicking the next time MyLondon marvels at somewhere else I had become blase about. Nice to see your own backyard through someone else's eyes.
Was a tone deaf appointment.
Is a major embarrassment.
Was purely accidental.
Pick your favourite musical pun from that list...
LAB: 44% (-)
CON: 30% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
REF: 6% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-)
via
@techneUK
, 26 - 27 Ap
Funny old world.
Sharpe's ........?
Neither want the LDs to be Kingmakers most elections. PR would also see Labour leak votes to the Greens and the Tories leak votes to RefUK
If you are going to watch cricket at the Bristols Lagoon today, you will need some of these 😆
'Tis a joke, really. It seemed to be yet another distraction from dealing with actual problems for the council.
Maybe someone wanted it on their CV.
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
Anyway, personally, as an atheist, I can't see a cathedral (or indeed any reasonably handsome church) without my spirits being raised. Little to do with any sort of spirituality - just the joy or a really big and beautiful thing.
Also SKS by pissing off those that voted him as leader is doing anything he can to keep the Tories in power
Funny old World
Especially funny watching the increasing desperation of Centrists as Labour lead shrinks when long time Labour voters refuse to vote for the full weight wanker that is SKS who literally told them if they didnt like what he was doing theres the door
ToryJohnOwls please explain.
The assumption that one of the two largest parties deserves our vote solely because they are one of the two largest parties is contemptible and undemocratic.
source: Whittaker's almanac, 1974, half-remembered from at least 20 years ago. May not be accurate but is not woefully inaccurate.
Ely sailing like a ship above the fenland mist is also spectacular
Salisbury is uniquely perfect. Lincoln is incredibly atmospheric
Which are the worst?
Guildford, Manchester, Bristol, Liverpool, Truro….
Guildford I think. So fucking ugly
He gave 10 pledges none of which he now stands by
Its not even about being left wing its about integrity
He promised to unite all wings of the Party and has done the complete opposite
It is a shame that very little remains of the Roman occupation.
Frankly, if we're going to be stuck with FPTP, I'd prefer there to be no manifestos.
Because the Big Two run on either "Keep them out" or "Kick them out," and if you don't endorse one of them, you're regarded as effectively endorsing the other one.
Yet whoever wins a majority of the seat (on a sub-majority plurality of the vote) then pretends that all their votes were a direct endorsement of everything in their manifesto and claims everything in them is now democratically legitimate. So it'll be a little more honest to not claim that, thank you.
Of course, given that actual electoral competition is suppressed down to one shade of shit versus another shade of shit (as many people view them) we end up with "Vote for us or Corbyn gets in - oh, dear, you've now endorsed Johnson and a hard Brexit," or "Vote for us or Johnson stays in - oh dear, you've now endorsed Corby and whatever hard-left stuff he's come up with."
Neither Sunak nor Starmer really excite us, yet both of them want to fossilise the system of "If not him, then me." Free market competition is great for the Tories - right up until they have an effective monopoly in which case we can all sod off, they're in as the only alternative to Labour.
Fairness is great for Labour - right up until they have the ability to close down any option to move away from the Tories but themselves, in which case we can all sod off, they're the only option other than the Tories.
All of the "But FPTP is the way you get whoever you locally want as your representative," and "All votes reset to zero after the election and anyone can win," fly out of the window. Vote for us, or else (you're regarded as endorsing them).
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
https://confidentials.com/manchester/imagined-manchester-piccadilly-gardens-in-dreams
(My favourite cathedral is York Minster).
Out of Durham, Lincoln, Wells, Exeter, Ely, Winchester, Southwell, York, St. Paul's, St. Alban's, St. David's, I'd be hard pressed to choose.
Ely has a special place in my heart, because when I worked for Wood Green Animal Shelters, there was an annual service to which people took their dogs, who'd all start howling and barking along to the hymns.