He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
You're just not the target market.
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
I remember when a chap proposed opening a corner shop in an estate on the outskirts of Abingdon.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
Petty nastiness like that happens all over. A couple of (utterly inoffensive) kids' treehouses in gardens near me have had to be taken down because of complaints. Some people are just dicks.
Interestingly, the Abingdon thing was the council and "officials" - the residents liked the idea of having a 7-11 type corner shop.
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
That makes the Polling Companies look a bit silly. Never trust polls.
Not really. Labour +10 in locals pretty well corresponds to Labour +15 at Westminster, partly because local elections give more chance for smaller parties to grab votes and seats. Graphs here;
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
I suspect that as the GE approaches right wing voters will focus on CON as the only way to try and keep LAB out. Support for REF - such as it is - will drift away, it really is a wasted vote in a FPTP GE.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
You're just not the target market.
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
More is the pity. I would like to see a general improvement in the standard of our politicians. A choice between Johnson and Corbyn was the pits. At least we have a modest improvement now, but the idea of Rayner as deputy PM is even more ludicrous than Raaaab
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
You're just not the target market.
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
A reason for the complaints about Ministers over the years (bullying, ineffective etc) relates to the fact that most MPs have no modern management skills or training.
I have long advocated training and professional development for MPs.
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
That makes the Polling Companies look a bit silly. Never trust polls.
Not really. Labour +10 in locals pretty well corresponds to Labour +15 at Westminster, partly because local elections give more chance for smaller parties to grab votes and seats. Graphs here;
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
There's vast tracts of empty land from Newark to Selby.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
You're just not the target market.
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
More is the pity. I would like to see a general improvement in the standard of our politicians. A choice between Johnson and Corbyn was the pits. At least we have a modest improvement now, but the idea of Rayner as deputy PM is even more ludicrous than Raaaab
Depends what her role boils down to. Prescott was given a huge megadepartment to run, Raaaab was in charge of Justice, heaven help us. Dowden's job just seems to be to go on the telly.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
Watching @MoonRabbit on this thread last night shamelessly spinning for the Tories then trying to hide her complete failure as an analyst by breathless takes in the opposite direction was classic PB
Angela Raynor is like my mum's family. Working class, vocally northern and looks it too. Rayner has more brains than most of mum's family but doesn't sound like it.
Its awful that I can't take her seriously, but I can't.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy to argue for tougher regulation of water companies, whether or not your pension fund (if you have one) holds shares in them ?
If there was ever a metaphor for the Tory performance yesterday.
Let's off road! Braunston Wank Panzer. Edward Baines (Conservative), standing for local council elections today, 'parked' right opposite the Village Hall where voting takes place today!@Wankpanzer 👇
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
I don't know a single person who doesn't!
I guess lightweights and low graders have a market appeal to some. Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are popular with those of limited discernment.
Looks like the Tories are being battered everywhere tbh. Plymouth, Medway and Stoke good results for Labour to pick out 3 working class places.
I think Anthony King will be getting up from his grave to comment on this one.
It looks to me like the Conservatives are heading for about 850 losses.
A rotten result, but actually *not* on a par with those of the mid 90's. The Conservatives have held onto councils that they lost quite comprehensively to Labour and the Lib Dems, back then.
500 to 1000 losses about the same as Labour suffered in 2007 but still better than the over 1000 losses May had in 2019 or the over 2000 losses Major had in 1995.
Sir Keir will be glad Labour have gained bellwether councils like Medway, Stoke and Plymouth but the results suggest they are heading for largest party in a hung parliament or small Labour majority but not a Labour landslide like 1997. For instance Harlow and Basildon and Redditch, which Blair won in 1997, have stayed blue
The tell will be what happens in the rest of the Blue and Red walls today. So far we have seen incursions against you by whichever party is best placed to defeat you. Labour wins against you in Middlesbrough, Stoke, Medway have to put the pulse racing a little, no?
But its not all about Labour. The other parties have conspired against you - look at Worcester where had people just voted Labour in seats they couldn't win you would likely have clung on in a minority. But they voted *against* you and that's a drop from power to third place. In Worcester!
It was always a funny old world where the Conservatives controlled places like Middlesbrough and Stoke. Thatcher could only dream of such things.
These are just signs of a return to a more normal (post Brexit) politics?
Likely. Though status quo ante is not a result for decaying hellholes like Middlesbrough - they need rescuing. The Tories promised these red wall rust belt towns the moon on a stick. Brexit and the Oven Ready Deal would see their lives improve, put a bit more money in their pockets and see pride come back into their communities.
And then the reverse has happened. So understandably ever larger numbers of people want the Tories out. They aren't stupid, they don't like being lied to. But then again Labour who had presided over some of these places since the Danelaw had let them go to ruin beforehand. "Its all the Tories fault, vote Labour" is no longer going to work.
Starmer's challenge is to actually turn some of these places around. Deliver actual levelling up projects. And investment is available - an ocean of public cash spent on Teesside, its just that it's all being handed over to a small number of the right people and not the town. Boro was refused tens of millions because the council wanted the money to be accountable and the mayor said it could only go to his no scrutiny cash in brown envelope operation...
I reckon a lot of levelling up would have happened.
There's your general election winning slogan right there.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
You're just not the target market.
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
More is the pity. I would like to see a general improvement in the standard of our politicians. A choice between Johnson and Corbyn was the pits. At least we have a modest improvement now, but the idea of Rayner as deputy PM is even more ludicrous than Raaaab
Riiight, so you personally think things would be better if politicians were more managerial, and more like the sort of people knocking about in FTSE 250 companies. Fine, that's your personal view, and I'm sure the view of some other people too.
But your starting point was that, because Rayner is not that person, she's a vote loser for Labour. That's where your argument falls down. What you're hanging your hat on is that to be vote winners, politicians have to appeal to YOU personally and people very much like YOU. They don't - they have to appeal to the electorate, which includes people like you but also includes people who aren't.
And because parties aren't just one person, Sunak and Starmer (both of whom you can see doing the books at United Widgets PLC) have people around them who appeal to different sorts of voters.
Looks like the Tories are being battered everywhere tbh. Plymouth, Medway and Stoke good results for Labour to pick out 3 working class places.
I think Anthony King will be getting up from his grave to comment on this one.
It looks to me like the Conservatives are heading for about 850 losses.
A rotten result, but actually *not* on a par with those of the mid 90's. The Conservatives have held onto councils that they lost quite comprehensively to Labour and the Lib Dems, back then.
500 to 1000 losses about the same as Labour suffered in 2007 but still better than the over 1000 losses May had in 2019 or the over 2000 losses Major had in 1995.
Sir Keir will be glad Labour have gained bellwether councils like Medway, Stoke and Plymouth but the results suggest they are heading for largest party in a hung parliament or small Labour majority but not a Labour landslide like 1997. For instance Harlow and Basildon and Redditch, which Blair won in 1997, have stayed blue
How's your confident call that the Tories would be winning seats from the Lib Dems panning out at this early stage, out of interest?
Also, the Lib Dems winning twice as many seats as the Tories in a Westminster seat the Tories hold now by a fair majority is not quite the zinger you think it is.
Yes and less than half of councils have declared. North Norfolk was a LD held council where the Tories have made significant gains from the LDs. I always said Tory losses to the LDs in councils the Tories held would be offset by some Tory gains from the LDs in LD controlled councils like North Norfolk.
North Norfolk had a LD MP from 2001 to 2019
So far, it's been trivial gains in the handful of Councils where the Tories start from a base of next to nothing, versus significant losses in the areas which are blue. As was pointed out to you that is most areas in this year of the cycle, notwithstanding losses in 2019, as we're looking at a lot of relatively rural and suburban district councils in England.
In fairness, you put your neck on the line with the call. But, as your head rolls around in the basket, it's probably time to admit the call was wrong.
Probably a bit late to admit anything when your head is rolling around the basket!
He will have to as I have a £5 charity bet with him that the LDs will make net gains off of the Tories (and it is not over yet!!!).
To his credit @HYUFD took the bet which I have never seen him do before and at that stage there wasn't any hedging re the outcome as he was confident the Tories would come out on top and in fairness the numbers were on his side because of the LD gains last time and my only evidence was a gut feeling that my brain said was foolish. More recently he has been more cautious. Only the other day he said it was going to be tight, so was a lot less confident.
I'm not going to gloat because he put his money where his mouth is, so credit to him.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
I suspect that as the GE approaches right wing voters will focus on CON as the only way to try and keep LAB out. Support for REF - such as it is - will drift away, it really is a wasted vote in a FPTP GE.
Reform and Lozza's RECLAIM will probably be killed off in Election 24. So that's some good news for Con.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy to argue for tougher regulation of water companies, whether or not your pension fund (if you have one) holds shares in them ?
That's the most stupid argument I've heard today.
It wasn't my argument. It was an observation that many who bleat on about the outrageous situation of utilities issuing dividends are often the same economically inactive folk who laze around while sitting on massive pensions. Not that hard to follow really is it Einstein? I guess may apply to you?
And on that note I will wish you adieu as I would like to do some work and have already spent far too much time on here. Fun though it is. See you all soon
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
Oh FFS stop spinning for a minute and look at what actually goes on in the modern world. Yes you are right that if a company issues shares then, other things being equal, pension funds can invest in them. But if there are no shares because, for instance, it is private equity, then they can't.
Utilities are classically either publicly owned or, if not, locally owned and heavily regulated. They have to be regulated because they are natural monopolies. That's been economics 101 since Adam Smith was in short trousers.
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
I suspect that as the GE approaches right wing voters will focus on CON as the only way to try and keep LAB out. Support for REF - such as it is - will drift away, it really is a wasted vote in a FPTP GE.
I know hope springs eternal and all that, but (1) how many Refuk candidates were there in these local elections anyway and more importantly (2) when the Tory party has such a huge lead in the unpopularity contest, do you really think anti-Labour tactical voting will have a bigger effect than anti-Tory tactical voting?
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy to argue for tougher regulation of water companies, whether or not your pension fund (if you have one) holds shares in them ?
That's the most stupid argument I've heard today.
It wasn't my argument. It was an observation that many who bleat on about the outrageous situation of utilities issuing dividends are often the same economically inactive folk who laze around while sitting on massive pensions. Not that hard to follow really is it Einstein? I guess may apply to you?
And on that note I will wish you adieu as I would like to do some work and have already spent far too much time on here. Fun though it is. See you all soon
Your guess is pure bollocks, as is your argument.
Even rephrased, you're still saying that it's hypocrisy for those who are receiving dividends are hypocrits for arguing in favour of regulation which is likely to reduce them. That's just nonsense.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
Ultra competitive, super low margin sector of the defence business with many strong players. Why would you be in the small arms trade if you didn't have to be?
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
The UK has largely given up running big businesses. Yes of course we still have some - but on a much smaller scale than we had, and way smaller than competitors like Germany.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
I suspect that as the GE approaches right wing voters will focus on CON as the only way to try and keep LAB out. Support for REF - such as it is - will drift away, it really is a wasted vote in a FPTP GE.
I know hope springs eternal and all that, but (1) how many Refuk candidates were there in these local elections anyway and more importantly (2) when the Tory party has such a huge lead in the unpopularity contest, do you really think anti-Labour tactical voting will have a bigger effect than anti-Tory tactical voting?
I'm not sure that there will be much tactical voting of any kind in the GE. Perhaps in a few seats based on local campaigning.
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
"However, Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, poured cold water on the claim about Labour being on course to win a majority.
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
Severn Vale - results Election Candidate Party Votes % Tony Williams Liberal Democrats 1537 24% Elected Matthew Robert Riddle Conservative Party 1528 24% Elected Mark Oaten Liberal Democrats 1435 23% Not elected Keith John Burchell Conservative Party 1325 21% Not elected Abigail Brook Curtis Labour Party 307 5% Not elected Naomi Charlotte Carroll Labour Party 229 4% Not elected
I await the Town Council vote.
On topic across South Gloucestershire Thornbury and Yate (and Dursley in new constituency) there seems to have been a swing to LibDem. I would expect Luke Hall to lose at next election. Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Kingswood constituencies seem to have swung towards Labour. Interestingly a lot of the areas with huge newer housing estates seem to have voted Tory - this could be an even worse problem at the next election if they are also struggling under huge and increasing mortgage costs.
As bad as the results are at the moment for the Conservatives, I am hearing that there may well be a sting in the tail among the results coming in later this afternoon.
Looks like the Tories are being battered everywhere tbh. Plymouth, Medway and Stoke good results for Labour to pick out 3 working class places.
I think Anthony King will be getting up from his grave to comment on this one.
It looks to me like the Conservatives are heading for about 850 losses.
A rotten result, but actually *not* on a par with those of the mid 90's. The Conservatives have held onto councils that they lost quite comprehensively to Labour and the Lib Dems, back then.
500 to 1000 losses about the same as Labour suffered in 2007 but still better than the over 1000 losses May had in 2019 or the over 2000 losses Major had in 1995.
Sir Keir will be glad Labour have gained bellwether councils like Medway, Stoke and Plymouth but the results suggest they are heading for largest party in a hung parliament or small Labour majority but not a Labour landslide like 1997. For instance Harlow and Basildon and Redditch, which Blair won in 1997, have stayed blue
The tell will be what happens in the rest of the Blue and Red walls today. So far we have seen incursions against you by whichever party is best placed to defeat you. Labour wins against you in Middlesbrough, Stoke, Medway have to put the pulse racing a little, no?
But its not all about Labour. The other parties have conspired against you - look at Worcester where had people just voted Labour in seats they couldn't win you would likely have clung on in a minority. But they voted *against* you and that's a drop from power to third place. In Worcester!
It was always a funny old world where the Conservatives controlled places like Middlesbrough and Stoke. Thatcher could only dream of such things.
These are just signs of a return to a more normal (post Brexit) politics?
Likely. Though status quo ante is not a result for decaying hellholes like Middlesbrough - they need rescuing. The Tories promised these red wall rust belt towns the moon on a stick. Brexit and the Oven Ready Deal would see their lives improve, put a bit more money in their pockets and see pride come back into their communities.
And then the reverse has happened. So understandably ever larger numbers of people want the Tories out. They aren't stupid, they don't like being lied to. But then again Labour who had presided over some of these places since the Danelaw had let them go to ruin beforehand. "Its all the Tories fault, vote Labour" is no longer going to work.
Starmer's challenge is to actually turn some of these places around. Deliver actual levelling up projects. And investment is available - an ocean of public cash spent on Teesside, its just that it's all being handed over to a small number of the right people and not the town. Boro was refused tens of millions because the council wanted the money to be accountable and the mayor said it could only go to his no scrutiny cash in brown envelope operation...
"The reverse has happened" - because the money got spent on two once in a generation/century events: Covid furlough and the Ukraine War spike in energy requiring support to bill payers.
Without them, I reckon a lot of levelling up would have happened. But that would not have been without political consequence. There are plenty in the blue wall who resent money being sent "up north".
The North (at least those parts which have trended to the Conservatives) currently has the sweet spot of full employment and affordable housing.
I suspect that many Conservatives don't think either is a good thing.
Now housing affordability has always been high in the North but full employment was last seen over 50 years ago.
And the slagheaps have been replaced by country parks while for a meal out the options are no longer restricted to a Berni Inn.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
That makes the Polling Companies look a bit silly. Never trust polls.
Not at all. This is an England only extrapolation on much lower turnout and much higher figures from LD, Green and Indie, than one would expect at the GE. If the figure is circa 10 I would suggest the polling companies have done reasonably well
If Labour finish just five points ahead, you have a point.
Someone somewhere needs to do some major statistical number crunching to get a proper estimate of what this means.
To my mind there are 4 significant factors we should try to unpick, two favouring the government in a future GE and the other two favouring the opposition:
1. The traditional mid term giving the incumbents a kicking effect. A variation on swingback. If this holds true for these elections then it foreshadows a better result for the Tories in 2024 2. Voter suppression: the policy seems to have worked fairly well on its own merits, ie a number of people have been turned away and it seems many stayed at home if they didn’t have ID. This effect will be there at the next election too. I assume it will benefit the government a little, but it’s hard to be sure exactly 3. Demographics: turnout was low, but was it equally relatively low across different age groups? If the voter base was markedly older in the locals than we’d expect in a GE then the extreme age effect we see in voting currently would suggest Labour doing better in the general. 4. Minor parties and tactical voting: the Lib Dems and Greens get much higher vote share in local elections. How much of this, particularly Greens, goes back to Labour at a GE? And how efficient is the Lib Dem tactical vote (it looks very efficient - they went backwards across the red wall). Refuk on the other hand seen to have done quite badly, so not so much unwind available for Con at the next election.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
I love her
She's done OK since the Tories accidentally turned her into the Sharon Stone of UK politics. Money can't buy PR like that.
"However, Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, poured cold water on the claim about Labour being on course to win a majority.
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
The UK has largely given up running big businesses. Yes of course we still have some - but on a much smaller scale than we had, and way smaller than competitors like Germany.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
It's not impossible - there are still a few companies managed for the long term (Renishaw, for example). But it is increasingly rare.
We opted in the 80s to make the economy almost entirely open to foreign capital, and for government to abandon long term industrial investment. That hasn't really changed since, and has created the situation you describe.
Severn Vale - results Election Candidate Party Votes % Tony Williams Liberal Democrats 1537 24% Elected Matthew Robert Riddle Conservative Party 1528 24% Elected Mark Oaten Liberal Democrats 1435 23% Not elected Keith John Burchell Conservative Party 1325 21% Not elected Abigail Brook Curtis Labour Party 307 5% Not elected Naomi Charlotte Carroll Labour Party 229 4% Not elected
I await the Town Council vote.
On topic across South Gloucestershire Thornbury and Yate (and Dursley in new constituency) there seems to have been a swing to LibDem. I would expect Luke Hall to lose at next election. Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Kingswood constituencies seem to have swung towards Labour. Interestingly a lot of the areas with huge newer housing estates seem to have voted Tory - this could be an even worse problem at the next election if they are also struggling under huge and increasing mortgage costs.
That's actually a pretty good result for the Lib Dems. For comparison, even the second place Tory romped home with a 500 majority in 2019. As you say, bodes quite well for them in South Glos.
As bad as the results are at the moment for the Conservatives, I am hearing that there may well be a sting in the tail among the results coming in later this afternoon.
When the real blue wall demolition gets going with Lib Dem sledgehammers.
Angela Raynor is like my mum's family. Working class, vocally northern and looks it too. Rayner has more brains than most of mum's family but doesn't sound like it.
Its awful that I can't take her seriously, but I can't.
I'm almost certain that I heard her say likkle instead of little in parliament when she was shadow education spokesperson.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
VISION-Eary morning on the river Wye. Sun coming up. Slow motion pull back on a golden mirror like reflection as an unidentifiable object gently floats into shot.....
Music-Peer Gynt-Morning
SFX-To be discussed. (Eraserhead?)
V.O. Joanna Lumley-'When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.......
I think I might have an idea for the Lib Dems next PPB. Southam can write it and I'll provide my services pro bono
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
They are standing is very few seats so I hardly expect them to make any impact. But the same applied to UKIP for much of their existence pre-2016. If projecting from Locals to Nationals is difficult for the main parties even when they are standing in most of the seats, it is a complete mugs game for small parties standing in only a few.
I am not going to vote Reform but do think it daft to write them off just as it was to do the same to UKIP.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
Ultra competitive, super low margin sector of the defence business with many strong players. Why would you be in the small arms trade if you didn't have to be?
"However, Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, poured cold water on the claim about Labour being on course to win a majority.
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
Further down he says “ "I think the answer to that question, it was uncertain before yesterday and I think it is still uncertain this morning."
We can all choose which bits to selectively quote, but the bottom line is, like a doctor giving you a prognosis, he’s sensible enough not to give you hostages to fortune. This was a different type of election, LLG doing their own thing, taking council seats from each other, the GE a different beast, where Labour majority and size of it, and indeed the floor the Tory’s can finish on, is related to LLG helping each other in a way difficult to so accurately extrapolate from this data from a different type of election.
So Professor C can’t answer that question with precision. No one can. We have to wait for the GE exit poll.
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
She has done well considering the challenges in her life. I think she suffers from the classic left wing affliction of detesting the Tories and thinking them 'scum'. To form a decent majority, support from many people who have voted Tory is essential. Blair knew this, I think Starmer understands it too. Its great fun among your friends to imagine your opponents as evil, vile scum, but its not true and its not how politics should be in a modern democracy.
Anyone said how "Reform" are doing? I assume by the lack of seeing them mentioned Mr Tice has gone a bit limp (poor Izzy Oakshott) ?
They're only standing in 6% of seats.
Makes you wonder why they even bothered...
I agree it's a bit pathetic, although I suspect a lot of those they did stand will pop up again at the General Election, and there may be an element of "get a bit of experience in a real campaign and we'll check if you say something really stupid on Twitter in the heat of battle".
Surprised they didn't stand more, though. It's literally a free hit - no deposit to pay and broadly in their interests to make it as bruising as possible for Sunak.
"However, Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, poured cold water on the claim about Labour being on course to win a majority.
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
Uncertain is rubbish terminology here however esteemed the Professor may be. Uncertain could mean he thinks the probability of a Labour majority is a range between 30% and 70% or it could be a range between 80% and 90%, or pretty much any other percentages that are not 0% or 100%. Tell us the odds, or at least the range of odds, otherwise its a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
The UK has largely given up running big businesses. Yes of course we still have some - but on a much smaller scale than we had, and way smaller than competitors like Germany.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
It's not impossible - there are still a few companies managed for the long term (Renishaw, for example). But it is increasingly rare.
We opted in the 80s to make the economy almost entirely open to foreign capital, and for government to abandon long term industrial investment. That hasn't really changed since, and has created the situation you describe.
The investment thing is an even longer term issue. When I've gone round various industrial museums in the UK equivalent of a rust belt, it is fascinating to see how ancient the machinery was, in the 1960s.
As bad as the results are at the moment for the Conservatives, I am hearing that there may well be a sting in the tail among the results coming in later this afternoon.
When the real blue wall demolition gets going with Lib Dem sledgehammers.
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
But an interesting back story does not make a capable politican. And unless you see 'trade union worker' as some sort of exalted career, it's not really a zero to hero story. She just comes across as not that bright. It's not her accent. I'm from Stockport. To me, she doesn't have an accent. She just sounds normal. It's that the things she says don't really seem to be that sharp. That said, there's more than one sort of intelligence; and if she had no intelligence at all she wouldn't have made it through the machine to get where she is. Politics isn't just about getting the ideas right; it's also about finding ways to agreement. She is also quite easy on the eye. And those who are easy on the eye are never really despised very hard.
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
She has done well considering the challenges in her life. I think she suffers from the classic left wing affliction of detesting the Tories and thinking them 'scum'. To form a decent majority, support from many people who have voted Tory is essential. Blair knew this, I think Starmer understands it too. Its great fun among your friends to imagine your opponents as evil, vile scum, but its not true and its not how politics should be in a modern democracy.
True, but the votes of people who think the Tories are scum and that SKS is an effete southern wanker are also important to Labour. Hence Rayner, and hence Prescott. Those people aren't going to vote Tory but might well not vote, or go for a minor party.
It needs managing to avoid scaring off one type of target voter, I agree, but managed well it works well.
Angela Raynor is like my mum's family. Working class, vocally northern and looks it too. Rayner has more brains than most of mum's family but doesn't sound like it.
Its awful that I can't take her seriously, but I can't.
I'm almost certain that I heard her say likkle instead of little in parliament when she was shadow education spokesperson.
Then find the video. Someone will have clipped it onto Youtube. Or check in Hansard when Rayner said "little" and cross-reference with video from parliament.tv or at least parliamentary sketches in Tory newspapers. How many votes it will move...
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
"However, Professor Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, poured cold water on the claim about Labour being on course to win a majority.
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
Telegraph reporting, eh? "Pouring cold water on" is somewhat stronger than Curtice being "uncertain". I think we can all agree that it remains "uncertain" if SKS could secure a majority.
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
She has done well considering the challenges in her life. I think she suffers from the classic left wing affliction of detesting the Tories and thinking them 'scum'. To form a decent majority, support from many people who have voted Tory is essential. Blair knew this, I think Starmer understands it too. Its great fun among your friends to imagine your opponents as evil, vile scum, but its not true and its not how politics should be in a modern democracy.
Sort of how I feel. I’m glad we have a mix of life experiences and social classes at the top of our politics and fair play to Angela for getting where she has. I do find the fact that she obviously loathes the people who disagree with her a bit distasteful though, it does speak to that immature strand that is present in both parties that reduces things to yah boo football chanting rather than considered attack and critique. It also can put Tory to Labour switchers off if they think someone at the top of the party actively dislikes them.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
The UK has largely given up running big businesses. Yes of course we still have some - but on a much smaller scale than we had, and way smaller than competitors like Germany.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
It's not impossible - there are still a few companies managed for the long term (Renishaw, for example). But it is increasingly rare.
We opted in the 80s to make the economy almost entirely open to foreign capital, and for government to abandon long term industrial investment. That hasn't really changed since, and has created the situation you describe.
The investment thing is an even longer term issue. When I've gone round various industrial museums in the UK equivalent of a rust belt, it is fascinating to see how ancient the machinery was, in the 1960s.
That's true - but was also true of many countries which have since outcompeted in manufacturing. The Thatcher government was of necessity a reforming government. But it chose to encourage the development of the financial sector at the expense of all else.
Free market dogma is insufficient for a strong economy.
“VISION-Eary morning on the river Wye. Sun coming up. Slow motion pull back on a golden mirror like reflection as an unidentifiable object gently floats into shot.....
Music-Peer Gynt-Morning
SFX-To be discussed. (Eraserhead?)
V.O. Joanna Lumley-'When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.......
I think I might have an idea for the Lib Dems next PPB. Southam can write it and I'll provide my services pro bono…”
But Miss Art Skool has beaten you to it.
a simple billboard - Sunak’s head is the end of the pipe, sewage spewing from his mouth all over our green and pleasant land.
I got Martin Rowson to draw it, for a token donation to the Save the Islington One, campaign.
I'm dreading the result in St Albans City and District. The Yellow Peril already run the area and now they are intent on putting the Tories on the endangered list. The local Tory MP is doing the chicken run so Harpenden looks like joining St Albans as a Lib Dem parliamentary seat.
I may have to consider exile to avoid the dreaded Yellow Peril. Even Windsor is now no go area !!!!
Go live in a caravan on Canvey Island, then you'll be safe and secure in the last redoubt
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
This is not complaining about private company dividends. Selling our water companies abroad is bad for their performance, bad for our balance of payments as profits (dividends) flow out of the country, and cannot easily be reversed because we sold off the assets, not just licences to operate them. It is even bad for your pension fund which cannot invest in them.
I think you will find that when a company is private it is able to sell it's shares pretty much where it likes as long as it is not a national security issue. The reality is that most on the left think such things should be nationalised as though that, bizarrely, is likely to make it better. Having bureaucrats in charge is a really good idea. Not.
The problem is that owning and running companies long term is hard work. Flogging them is much easier.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
The UK has largely given up running big businesses. Yes of course we still have some - but on a much smaller scale than we had, and way smaller than competitors like Germany.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
It's not impossible - there are still a few companies managed for the long term (Renishaw, for example). But it is increasingly rare.
We opted in the 80s to make the economy almost entirely open to foreign capital, and for government to abandon long term industrial investment. That hasn't really changed since, and has created the situation you describe.
The investment thing is an even longer term issue. When I've gone round various industrial museums in the UK equivalent of a rust belt, it is fascinating to see how ancient the machinery was, in the 1960s.
That's true - but was also true of many countries which have since outcompeted in manufacturing. The Thatcher government was of necessity a reforming government. But it chose to encourage the development of the financial sector at the expense of all else.
Free market dogma is insufficient for a strong economy.
There was a very good book written by a chap who tried to save chunks of the British ship building industry. Forget his name. When presented with the choice of taking on new work that required investment and changing methods, they chose to go out of business.
The management version of the people who waited for the mines to re-open.
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
The results show Red Wall Brexiteers happy to vote for “please in name of God give me an affirmative ref” Starmer’s Labour.
Moving on from the Brexit anger down in the blue wall?
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
Yep, we're clearly moving on... Except on PB of course!
Angela Raynor is like my mum's family. Working class, vocally northern and looks it too. Rayner has more brains than most of mum's family but doesn't sound like it.
Its awful that I can't take her seriously, but I can't.
I'm almost certain that I heard her say likkle instead of little in parliament when she was shadow education spokesperson.
This, while sub optimal is less sub optimal that the Old Etonian, Wykehamist and Fettes OB use of the faux glottal stop. I think it was Blair who stared this un (glottal) stoppable trend. Amol Rajan's version of it ('twenny twenny' for 2020) is the worst.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
I never understand what people mean by 'level up the north'.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
As bad as the results are at the moment for the Conservatives, I am hearing that there may well be a sting in the tail among the results coming in later this afternoon.
One of the stings where the creature dies after using it?
Given that current Patriot is designed* to intercept Theatre Ballistic Missiles, not surprising. All the Kh-47 is, is a ballistic missile fired from a plane. The whole "Hypersonic" thing is marketing hype.
*When Patriot was being designed, the US Congress and Senate was adamant that its capability should be limited, so that the Russians couldn't claim it was an ABM system. So they limited the burnout velocity of the rockets in the contract. The problem was the engineers kept improving the performance through development. So Ted Kennedy would get all upset. And the engineers had to find ways to reduce the performance.
Wagner apparently will be withdrawing from Bakhmut on 10th May unless they get ammo. If they do then all those thousands of lives wasted and just given up again. Ukraine was right to hold out there.
Evgeniy Prigozhin declares in a video that he will be ordering the withdrawal of Wagner mercenaries from Bakhmut due to an acute shortage of ammunition allegedly ordered by the Russian General Staff. He says Wagner will stay in the city until 9 May to avoid shame on this day. He… https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1654412610069037057
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
I never understand what people mean by 'level up the north'.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
Of course it doesn't mean anything. If it meant something they wouldn't say it.
Loads of the north (including where I live in a small industrial town) hates the very thought of being like the south east, or London in particular. Here where 20 somethings have babies and live in houses which they are buying and have grandparents 5 minutes walk away and all go to the same school and....
Wagner apparently will be withdrawing from Bakhmut on 10th May unless they get ammo. If they do then all those thousands of lives wasted and just given up again. Ukraine was right to hold out there.
Evgeniy Prigozhin declares in a video that he will be ordering the withdrawal of Wagner mercenaries from Bakhmut due to an acute shortage of ammunition allegedly ordered by the Russian General Staff. He says Wagner will stay in the city until 9 May to avoid shame on this day. He… https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1654412610069037057
“And today the new command of the Wagner group paid tribute to his predecessor who just happened to fall out of a sixth story window. Twice."
As bad as the results are at the moment for the Conservatives, I am hearing that there may well be a sting in the tail among the results coming in later this afternoon.
When the real blue wall demolition gets going with Lib Dem sledgehammers.
Looking that way
What is interesting so far is the Greens - over half of the LDs (so far) yet with a fraction of the seats going into the contest.
Also, one word of caution for Labour in the West Midlands - the results so far are not great. The only seat where there has been meaningful change in Labour taking Con seats is in Tamworth, which is Chris Pincher's seat so might be down to that factor.
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
The results show Red Wall Brexiteers happy to vote for “please in name of God give me an affirmative ref” Starmer’s Labour.
Moving on from the Brexit anger down in the blue wall?
Nah.
Good point, but don’t you think that anger is directed towards the utter idiocy of the Brexit we got under Johnson, rather than Brexit itself?
I was a remainer and am horrified by the economic damage been done by it. But a sensible post-Brexit relationship would (somewhat) mitigate that. Which is I think what we’re inching towards.
As an aside, your posts overnight have been absolutely wonderful, thank you.
Watching @MoonRabbit on this thread last night shamelessly spinning for the Tories then trying to hide her complete failure as an analyst by breathless takes in the opposite direction was classic PB
You have absolutely no idea what an honest psephologist goes through on a night like this.
Like you can explain why there is a difference between the NEV and PNS wider than the Millennium Footbridge? Go on, let’s hear it, and also what it means to the commentary. You are just selecting what you like and spinning like a top.
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
The results show Red Wall Brexiteers happy to vote for “please in name of God give me an affirmative ref” Starmer’s Labour.
Moving on from the Brexit anger down in the blue wall?
Nah.
Bregret is the double whammy for the Tories. Failure in the Red Wall and continuing resentment in the Blue Wall.
Watching @MoonRabbit on this thread last night shamelessly spinning for the Tories then trying to hide her complete failure as an analyst by breathless takes in the opposite direction was classic PB
You have absolutely no idea what an honest psephologist goes through on a night like this.
Like you can explain why there is a difference between the NEV and PNS wider than the Millennium Footbridge? Go on, let’s hear it, and also what it means to the commentary. You are just selecting what you like and spinning like a top.
Don't give up the day job would be my advice – although it provides excellent entertainment – reading back your waspish comments to the PB Lefties at around midnight last night is pure comedy gold!
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
I never understand what people mean by 'level up the north'.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
I don’t disagree that the three factors above have been big reasons why the Tories are losing now.
Re levelling up, however.
The very fact it is a somewhat nebulous concept should have helped the Tories rather than hindered them. It grew out of the feeling in many of these areas that they were forgotten/not cared about by successive governments of different colours. If they could play the mood music right and come up with some demonstrative successes (however small) and kept on message, I think that they would have been given more of the benefit of the doubt by many of these voters.
Watching @MoonRabbit on this thread last night shamelessly spinning for the Tories then trying to hide her complete failure as an analyst by breathless takes in the opposite direction was classic PB
You have absolutely no idea what an honest psephologist goes through on a night like this.
Like you can explain why there is a difference between the NEV and PNS wider than the Millennium Footbridge? Go on, let’s hear it, and also what it means to the commentary. You are just selecting what you like and spinning like a top.
Wagner apparently will be withdrawing from Bakhmut on 10th May unless they get ammo. If they do then all those thousands of lives wasted and just given up again. Ukraine was right to hold out there.
Evgeniy Prigozhin declares in a video that he will be ordering the withdrawal of Wagner mercenaries from Bakhmut due to an acute shortage of ammunition allegedly ordered by the Russian General Staff. He says Wagner will stay in the city until 9 May to avoid shame on this day. He… https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1654412610069037057
He says the Russian General Staff ordered that Wagner should be kept short of ammunition despite ample supplies, according to the subtitles.
I am near 100% convinced that Starmer will be next PM, assuming Sunak makes it to the next election that is.
But does this enthral me? Not really. Bear in mind that I never voted for Tony Blair though. I want to see these wretched tories booted out, and for a long time, but I'd hope for something more progressive and radical than continuity Blair. The LibDems would bring that to the Cabinet table.
I'd just be content to have a government that would be more likely to imprison Braverman for hate speech than appoint her Home Secretary
I think Angela Rayner is great . All my Labour supporting friends think the same . She has an interesting back story and has had her struggles which means people feel she has real life experience and can empathize with them .
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
She has done well considering the challenges in her life. I think she suffers from the classic left wing affliction of detesting the Tories and thinking them 'scum'. To form a decent majority, support from many people who have voted Tory is essential. Blair knew this, I think Starmer understands it too. Its great fun among your friends to imagine your opponents as evil, vile scum, but its not true and its not how politics should be in a modern democracy.
True, but the votes of people who think the Tories are scum and that SKS is an effete southern wanker are also important to Labour. Hence Rayner, and hence Prescott. Those people aren't going to vote Tory but might well not vote, or go for a minor party.
It needs managing to avoid scaring off one type of target voter, I agree, but managed well it works well.
Agree. More specifically, I'm confident that Angela is key to winning over to Labour quite a lot of working class female voters: she speaks for them.
One reflection so far (sorry if this already been posted): the results vindicate Starmer’s ambivalence about Brexit. Brexit supporters seem to be okay voting labour again.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
Yes and this is important for how well a Labour lead translates to seat gains at the GE. Starmer is winning the type of votes he most needs. His focus on this seems to be paying off. He'll be chuffed.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
I never understand what people mean by 'level up the north'.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
“ 1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock”
That is absolutely fantastic. Spot on in explaining how the Tories take a beating in both red wall and blue wall simultaneously.
The only sensible thing a government can do is push the “all in it together” as effectively as they can.
Tories are vanishing in parts of the Blue Wall because voters feel the Conservative Party has a bias against them.
Your local school in Devon falling to bits without any money coming to do something about it? You know why, don’t you.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
Covid destroyed any chance of a coherent government plan for at least two years from March 2020. Then the Russians invaded Ukraine, sending fuel prices soaring, and destroying the next two years.
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
Re your second paragraph, this is the thing that makes me the most angry about the current government and arguably the most important reason why they’ve lost my vote.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
I never understand what people mean by 'level up the north'.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
Of course it doesn't mean anything. If it meant something they wouldn't say it.
Loads of the north (including where I live in a small industrial town) hates the very thought of being like the south east, or London in particular. Here where 20 somethings have babies and live in houses which they are buying and have grandparents 5 minutes walk away and all go to the same school and....
No, I haven't read it. But I've got what I think is a vague idea of the gist - possibly increasing the GVA of areas with lower than average GVA, largely via investments in education and infrastructure, with a requirement to consider every investment decision (such as, for example, HS2) through the prism of levelling up. You might justifiably think the commitment to Levelling Up is insufficient, but there is quite a lot of information setting out what it is.
And do I want to be like Berkshire? Of course not. But I would quite like to have the investment that Berkshire gets.
Watching @MoonRabbit on this thread last night shamelessly spinning for the Tories then trying to hide her complete failure as an analyst by breathless takes in the opposite direction was classic PB
You have absolutely no idea what an honest psephologist goes through on a night like this.
Like you can explain why there is a difference between the NEV and PNS wider than the Millennium Footbridge? Go on, let’s hear it, and also what it means to the commentary. You are just selecting what you like and spinning like a top.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
I love her
She's done OK since the Tories accidentally turned her into the Sharon Stone of UK politics. Money can't buy PR like that.
Yes, my sense was that Skirtgate ended up being a big net positive for her, despite the headlines. She certainly has many 'fans' from both side of the political spectrum on PB – although @MoonRabbit will tell you she needs to work on her hair...
Looks like the Tories are being battered everywhere tbh. Plymouth, Medway and Stoke good results for Labour to pick out 3 working class places.
Labour has had a few stonking results, but there are a lot more areas where they haven’t taken anything from the Tories at all. Which might be of concern?
If you are using Worcester as your example, where Labour achieved a measly 1 seat gain? Not good enough for a general election win?
The LLG took 7 seats from the Tories in Worcester, and Labour well placed as the challenger to take the Tory seat.
Sure, after Corbyn ratnered the Labour brand and left them more than 120 seat wins from an overall majority, Labour were left with a huge electoral hurdle. But when the dust settles on this election, and the situation in westminster seats like Worcester are analysed the overall majority from this position is definitely on, despite how these results may at first glance appear patchy for Labour.
Comments
As with TV, film, music etc, it's really important to distinguish things that are crap from things that are targeting a market that doesn't include you.
You might look at politics and ask whether the person is someone who you could easily see in middle management at of a FTSE 250 company. Fine, that's a matter for you. But you do need to understand the reality that a lot of voters don't view politics in that way.
https://beyondthetopline.substack.com/p/forget-the-party-spin-what-does-history
If neither had happened Johnson would have wasted the time - he never had a plan for what to do with power, just a route to getting to be PM. But I think its fair to acknowledge the substantial challenges that have been thrown at the government. If Corbyn had won in 2019, Labour would now be facing a wipeout too.
Add in too long in power, with too many Tories shown to be crooks, chancers, thick, and sadly worse, then its clear that the country needs change.
I don't think Labour is really up to it - I think a coalition might be the best for the country, but maybe I have too fond memories of 2010-2015.
I have long advocated training and professional development for MPs.
But that probably was the exception and was a long time ago though. Voters are lot more inclined to support smaller parties now.
Its awful that I can't take her seriously, but I can't.
That's the most stupid argument I've heard today.
But your starting point was that, because Rayner is not that person, she's a vote loser for Labour. That's where your argument falls down. What you're hanging your hat on is that to be vote winners, politicians have to appeal to YOU personally and people very much like YOU. They don't - they have to appeal to the electorate, which includes people like you but also includes people who aren't.
And because parties aren't just one person, Sunak and Starmer (both of whom you can see doing the books at United Widgets PLC) have people around them who appeal to different sorts of voters.
Do you understand that point?
To his credit @HYUFD took the bet which I have never seen him do before and at that stage there wasn't any hedging re the outcome as he was confident the Tories would come out on top and in fairness the numbers were on his side because of the LD gains last time and my only evidence was a gut feeling that my brain said was foolish. More recently he has been more cautious. Only the other day he said it was going to be tight, so was a lot less confident.
I'm not going to gloat because he put his money where his mouth is, so credit to him.
Many years ago, I tried to get some answers from BAE (shareholder) as to why they were selling of H&K - the most successful military firearms outfit on the planet. People looked at me as if I was mad...
And on that note I will wish you adieu as I would like to do some work and have already spent far too much time on here. Fun though it is. See you all soon
Utilities are classically either publicly owned or, if not, locally owned and heavily regulated. They have to be regulated because they are natural monopolies. That's been economics 101 since Adam Smith was in short trousers.
Even rephrased, you're still saying that it's hypocrisy for those who are receiving dividends are hypocrits for arguing in favour of regulation which is likely to reduce them.
That's just nonsense.
Why is that? Lets use the car industry as an explainer. The decline set in with the creation of BMC in the 50s - two businesses still at war with each other after the merger. We ended up with horrible management and horrible unions, utterly breaking the industry so that all that is left is a foreign-owned husk of what we once had.
The drive to dispose of the poorly-performing industrials (which was most of them) saw the drive to sell things off. Why bother trying to run and grow a large business over a long period, when there is good money to be made now flogging it off?
I used to work for Quorn Foods. Emerged out of ICI, who spent 20 years developing a radical new food product out of waste produced by their business. As ICI fell apart it ended up with Astra Zeneca then bounced around various private equity sharks before being sold to a Philippines business for £450m.
That kind of long term R&D investment is simply impossible in the UK now. We still create radical new technologies and products, but then sell them for a quick buck to foreign investors who then make the money.
I would be very happy to see her as leader of the Labour Party in the future .
He said the local election results suggested Labour should win the most seats at the next general election but it remained "uncertain" if Sir Keir could secure a majority."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/05/local-election-results-2023-live-updates-uk-councils-latest/
Unelected for South Gloucestershire Council
Severn Vale - results
Election Candidate Party Votes %
Tony Williams Liberal Democrats 1537 24% Elected
Matthew Robert Riddle Conservative Party 1528 24% Elected
Mark Oaten Liberal Democrats 1435 23% Not elected
Keith John Burchell Conservative Party 1325 21% Not elected
Abigail Brook Curtis Labour Party 307 5% Not elected
Naomi Charlotte Carroll Labour Party 229 4% Not elected
I await the Town Council vote.
On topic across South Gloucestershire Thornbury and Yate (and Dursley in new constituency) there seems to have been a swing to LibDem. I would expect Luke Hall to lose at next election. Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Kingswood constituencies seem to have swung towards Labour. Interestingly a lot of the areas with huge newer housing estates seem to have voted Tory - this could be an even worse problem at the next election if they are also struggling under huge and increasing mortgage costs.
I suspect that many Conservatives don't think either is a good thing.
Now housing affordability has always been high in the North but full employment was last seen over 50 years ago.
And the slagheaps have been replaced by country parks while for a meal out the options are no longer restricted to a Berni Inn.
In large part I supported them in 2019 because I believed that Brexit certainty (although I voted remain) and levelling up would be good for the country. Mea maxima culpa.
The way that Boris and the Tories have squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a broad coalition encompassing traditional Tory areas and working class northern/post industrial areas is (as a former supporter of the party) quite heartbreaking. The people in the red wall put their faith in a Tory government and they spat in their face. Little has been done to level up the north (and they cannot just blame covid - even their messaging hasn’t been on point for years).
Instead the Tories have retreated to their classical sensibilities about immigrants and tax cuts and small state. Truss was the most egregious misstep but to be fair Sunak’s government doesn’t seem to be much better in terms of the messaging.
2019 will go down in history as a moment when the Tories were gifted the golden goose and they then proceeded to slaughter it and all the opportunity that went with it.
To my mind there are 4 significant factors we should try to unpick, two favouring the government in a future GE and the other two favouring the opposition:
1. The traditional mid term giving the incumbents a kicking effect. A variation on swingback. If this holds true for these elections then it foreshadows a better result for the Tories in 2024
2. Voter suppression: the policy seems to have worked fairly well on its own merits, ie a number of people have been turned away and it seems many stayed at home if they didn’t have ID. This effect will be there at the next election too. I assume it will benefit the government a little, but it’s hard to be sure exactly
3. Demographics: turnout was low, but was it equally relatively low across different age
groups? If the voter base was markedly older in the locals than we’d expect in a GE then the extreme age effect we see in voting currently would suggest Labour doing better in the general.
4. Minor parties and tactical voting: the Lib Dems and Greens get much higher vote share in local elections. How much of this, particularly Greens, goes back to Labour at a GE? And how efficient is the Lib Dem tactical vote (it looks very efficient - they went backwards across the red wall). Refuk on the other hand seen to have done quite badly, so not so much unwind available for Con at the next election.
LLG vs RefCon NEV will be interesting.
But it is increasingly rare.
We opted in the 80s to make the economy almost entirely open to foreign capital, and for government to abandon long term industrial investment. That hasn't really changed since, and has created the situation you describe.
Music-Peer Gynt-Morning
SFX-To be discussed. (Eraserhead?)
V.O. Joanna Lumley-'When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.......
I think I might have an idea for the Lib Dems next PPB. Southam can write it and I'll provide my services pro bono
I am not going to vote Reform but do think it daft to write them off just as it was to do the same to UKIP.
We can all choose which bits to selectively quote, but the bottom line is, like a doctor giving you a prognosis, he’s sensible enough not to give you hostages to fortune. This was a different type of election, LLG doing their own thing, taking council seats from each other, the GE a different beast, where Labour majority and size of it, and indeed the floor the Tory’s can finish on, is related to LLG helping each other in a way difficult to so accurately extrapolate from this data from a different type of election.
So Professor C can’t answer that question with precision. No one can. We have to wait for the GE exit poll.
Surprised they didn't stand more, though. It's literally a free hit - no deposit to pay and broadly in their interests to make it as bruising as possible for Sunak.
And unless you see 'trade union worker' as some sort of exalted career, it's not really a zero to hero story.
She just comes across as not that bright.
It's not her accent. I'm from Stockport. To me, she doesn't have an accent. She just sounds normal. It's that the things she says don't really seem to be that sharp.
That said, there's more than one sort of intelligence; and if she had no intelligence at all she wouldn't have made it through the machine to get where she is. Politics isn't just about getting the ideas right; it's also about finding ways to agreement.
She is also quite easy on the eye. And those who are easy on the eye are never really despised very hard.
It needs managing to avoid scaring off one type of target voter, I agree, but managed well it works well.
Which is, I think, good for the country. Perhaps we are finally starting to move on from Brexit (and can continue to build a more sensible relationship with Europe)
"Pouring cold water on" is somewhat stronger than Curtice being "uncertain". I think we can all agree that it remains "uncertain" if SKS could secure a majority.
The Thatcher government was of necessity a reforming government. But it chose to encourage the development of the financial sector at the expense of all else.
Free market dogma is insufficient for a strong economy.
Music-Peer Gynt-Morning
SFX-To be discussed. (Eraserhead?)
V.O. Joanna Lumley-'When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.......
I think I might have an idea for the Lib Dems next PPB. Southam can write it and I'll provide my services pro bono…”
But Miss Art Skool has beaten you to it.
a simple billboard - Sunak’s head is the end of the pipe, sewage spewing from his mouth all over our green and pleasant land.
I got Martin Rowson to draw it, for a token donation to the Save the Islington One, campaign.
The management version of the people who waited for the mines to re-open.
⚡️⚡️🇺🇦Ukrainian military air defense operators officially confirm the first downing of the 🇷🇺Russian Kh-47 Kinzhal hypersonic missile, using the MIM-104 Patriot air defense system
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1654421576702361602
Moving on from the Brexit anger down in the blue wall?
Nah.
Level up to what ?
If its to become more like south-east England then why would the unaffordable housing, the inequality, the congestion be deemed an improvement ?
Where the Conservatives have gone wrong has been:
1) Destroying the 'all in it together' meme - Boris plus others eg Hancock
2) Destroying the 'competent economic management' meme - Truss plus Kwarteng
3) Sleaze - Boris again but numerous others
If there's one thing that the Conservatives need to learn in opposition its that earnings should come from creating some wealth or providing a needed service.
Not from giving and receiving vague and vast payments based on political and family connections.
*When Patriot was being designed, the US Congress and Senate was adamant that its capability should be limited, so that the Russians couldn't claim it was an ABM system. So they limited the burnout velocity of the rockets in the contract. The problem was the engineers kept improving the performance through development. So Ted Kennedy would get all upset. And the engineers had to find ways to reduce the performance.
Evgeniy Prigozhin declares in a video that he will be ordering the withdrawal of Wagner mercenaries from Bakhmut due to an acute shortage of ammunition allegedly ordered by the Russian General Staff. He says Wagner will stay in the city until 9 May to avoid shame on this day. He…
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1654412610069037057
Loads of the north (including where I live in a small industrial town) hates the very thought of being like the south east, or London in particular. Here where 20 somethings have babies and live in houses which they are buying and have grandparents 5 minutes walk away and all go to the same school and....
Also, one word of caution for Labour in the West Midlands - the results so far are not great. The only seat where there has been meaningful change in Labour taking Con seats is in Tamworth, which is Chris Pincher's seat so might be down to that factor.
I was a remainer and am horrified by the economic damage been done by it. But a sensible post-Brexit relationship would (somewhat) mitigate that. Which is I think what we’re inching towards.
As an aside, your posts overnight have been absolutely wonderful, thank you.
Like you can explain why there is a difference between the NEV and PNS wider than the Millennium Footbridge? Go on, let’s hear it, and also what it means to the commentary. You are just selecting what you like and spinning like a top.
The later results are likely to be even worse as more whole councils seats are up for grabs .
Re levelling up, however.
The very fact it is a somewhat nebulous concept should have helped the Tories rather than hindered them. It grew out of the feeling in many of these areas that they were forgotten/not cared about by successive governments of different colours. If they could play the mood music right and come up with some demonstrative successes (however small) and kept on message, I think that they would have been given more of the benefit of the doubt by many of these voters.
"It's been a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for the Conservatives"
A truly moving tribute to the great man.
That is absolutely fantastic. Spot on in explaining how the Tories take a beating in both red wall and blue wall simultaneously.
The only sensible thing a government can do is push the “all in it together” as effectively as they can.
Tories are vanishing in parts of the Blue Wall because voters feel the Conservative Party has a bias against them.
Your local school in Devon falling to bits without any money coming to do something about it? You know why, don’t you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-the-united-kingdom
No, I haven't read it. But I've got what I think is a vague idea of the gist - possibly increasing the GVA of areas with lower than average GVA, largely via investments in education and infrastructure, with a requirement to consider every investment decision (such as, for example, HS2) through the prism of levelling up.
You might justifiably think the commitment to Levelling Up is insufficient, but there is quite a lot of information setting out what it is.
And do I want to be like Berkshire? Of course not. But I would quite like to have the investment that Berkshire gets.