The truth that only SKS seems to understand and not the feckless idiots BJO is friends with, is that for Labour to WIN elections, it must be taking the country as it IS, not as it would wish it to be.
SNP implosion combines with tactical voting and a general mood for change. They may fall just short of an overall majority but I think Scotland will just get them over the line.
Interesting, thanks.
I do think Labour could win 20-30 seats in Scotland and being largest party there is also not out of the question.
Useless, when it comes to govewrning in England. That's the dilemma.
Labour have to get an absolute majority - or a LD coalition - on English seats alone, as well as in the UK as a whole.
The inverse West Lothian question, which everyone seems to be missing.
-The Tories scrapped EVEL -Labour are against EVEL, and had MPs like John Reid in cabinet positions which were devolved in Scotland. I don't think Starmer gives a shit about the Daily Mail going nuts if he instructs Pamela Nash and Douglas Alexander to go through the 'Aye lobby' to get his NHS reforms through. Nobody will care other than people who would never vote Labour in a million years.
The Tories never did implement or scrap EVEL properly. And they scrapped it precisely to create a bear trap for Labour.
It's all abour perception. Things have changed forever. The Tories have nothing to lose. Labour have everything to lose.
If you think Starmer would lose a close run vote in parliament to get a key piece of legislation because he instructed SLAB MPs to abstain I have a bridge to sell to you.
And if you think that the Tories would never let him forget it, on the grounds of the illegitimacy of the vote in their perception, you are far too naive to be allowed out on your own on a political betting website.
I suspect Starmer would try to use Barnett consequentials to justify it and people will move on. I can see the Tories trying it, but it will probably be about as successful as the various shit they try and pin on him. It will enrage GB news viewers and Daily Mail readers but nobody else.
Labour has outlined the start of what may become policies.
Good to see the abolition of leasehold in there, especially after the Conservatives appear to have dropped their pledge this week.
I want it backdated. I am in a leasehold and they are scam artists.
About 20% of UK property stock is leasehold IIRC, so a huge number of votes in it. Conservatives have demonstrated this week they care more about a few big developers than millions of home "owners".
I feel much more confident about predicting the economic situation than the politics. The Financial situation is looking very clear to me right now. And if Starmer is seeing what I’m seeing, he ain’t going to like it.
I very much get the idea UK -
1 stopped printing money too late, 2 started rate rises to combat inflation too late, 3 was left more exposed to expensive energy imports than similar countries to ours, 4 this biggest tax take ever is pushing up inflation, 5 UKs famous issue with sluggish productivity is pushing up inflation
(when she’s home working I can hear dear GF micro managing her staff all day long - is UK rubbish because we are the micro management capital of the world?)
Certainly all the wage deals - clearly needed when food inflation is 20% for so long! - not just public sector but private sector, is helping to maintain high inflation this year, and if inflation only halves to 5% that’s a nightmare scenario for government restoring incomes.
But when you stop printing money and magicking up electronic money in qualitative easing, how long does the impact of what went on before last for, months, years, through a decade? Has the BOE even stopped magicking money - when Bank of England helps out government by buying government bonds, such as to save pensions industry, is this fuelling inflation?
I’ve got a bad feeling about the UK finances and economy, and household income, not just for this year and 2024, but several years after that too. If there is a change of government, these sort of problems won’t just stop or go away based on that. In fact with swingback to the Tories leaving it increasingly like neither Tories or Lab + Lib getting working majority, that could lower our credit rating increasing our debt payments making our government poorer, whoever forms it - that’s exactly what happened to Frances rating, downgraded on basis protests against macron making it look like weak government.
IMS are gloomy on world growth for the whole of the next 4 years. With BOE now gloomy on halving double digit inflation this year, IMO brits are going to stay struggling for years, and the longevity of this hurts more all the time with nest eggs getting spent and more and more borrowing all just to survive, add in the high grocery prices add in high mortgage rates and rise in repossessions, add in ongoing disruption between worker/union employer/government over incomes and wages, the darker days of this credit squeeze are actually ahead of us, the worst of it will probably come the other side of the next general election.
High government debt, sluggish productivity, taxed to the hilt - its at least another three or four years of crisis, struggle and pain isn’t it?
Please pick me up on anything and crorrect me where wrong.
I'm fairly upbeat about the economy. After May, wage rises will be outpacing inflation, and it seems quite plain that the predicted recession is not actually going to happen.
Interest rates at 4-5% are actually where htey ought to be.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
That was 2017 - by 2019 Corbyn's popularity had disappeared.. Heck Bozo won a majority and large numbers of safe Labour seats voted for Bozo as the "better" option
With the exception of the Redfield & Wilton poll which now does look to be a bit of an outlier (shame), the week's polls show a solid Labour lead moving back to the high teens.
Swings in England of 14-15% are going to reduce the Conservative Parliamentary party by half if not more with tactical voting so it seems the next movements are to be "swingback" and the Don't Knows returning to the fold.
If you think about it, the amount of swing back between May and December 2019 was extraordinary but possibly atypical. There comes a point in any Government or time in Government when kicking them in the ballots locally just doesn't do it and a Parliamentary ballot-kicking is the last act of the drama and the first step on the road to renewal.
The seats coming up next year were last fought in 2021 as part of a much bigger set of local contests but in comparison 2021 had 4,737 seats contested and last Thursday had 8.057. In 2016, 2,769 seats were contested and it will be these which will be fought next year.
In 2021, the Conservatives got 36%, Labour 29% and the LDs 17%. Last week, it was 35-26 to Labour so that's an 8% swing - a repeat of that would see another round of Conservative losses less than six months from a possible October poll.
The question than becomes whether Sunak and Hunt will seek to buy votes with a possibly unaffordable tax cut as a last throw of the dice. Even that may not have the resonance it once did - it may simply be after 14 years the Conservatives will have run out of road.
The trouble with that is... what happens if a "destroy everything" tax cut works electorally? Do the Conservatives really want to carry on holding the baby?
The big question coming out of last week's voting is how much of what we saw was "anyone but the Conservatives". My hunch is quite a lot. And that's good news for a Labour majority, because in most swing constituencies, abC = Labour. However beige they are.
"Sky News understands Harriet Harman, chair of parliament’s Partygate Inquiry, was in personal contact with Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer’s incoming chief of staff Sue Gray while she was still a civil servant"
Sounds rather mild, but Sky don't get involved in fringe matters unless they sniff a story. Will this have legs after all?
Labour has outlined the start of what may become policies.
Good to see the abolition of leasehold in there, especially after the Conservatives appear to have dropped their pledge this week.
I want it backdated. I am in a leasehold and they are scam artists.
About 20% of UK property stock is leasehold IIRC, so a huge number of votes in it. Conservatives have demonstrated this week they care more about a few big developers than millions of home "owners".
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
Bugger the Newhaven extension, I'd like to see the A7 and A702/703 extensions before I die!
There is going to be an almighty battle over further tram extensions - the proposal is to sacrifice our excellent off-road cycle network for it, rather than plonk it on some roads (to be fair, very difficult to cross the Water of Leith at any other location other than Roseburn).
If I suddenly go silent, It's because I've chained myself to a tree in Granton and my phone is dead.
There’s been nothing to suggest the Tories can improve their position. Interest rate rises will bite hard despite inflation slowing. The whole debacle today with the typical ERGers shows how fecked the Tories are
I mean all today has really proved once again is how impotent the ERG are at the moment. As the saw with the Windor deal and now we see again the the repeal bill, the ERG'ers can howl as the moon as much as they link but there's literally nothing they can do.
The fact Rishi's government is upsetting the ERG'ers and they are impotent to do anything about it, should be a plus for the government to be honest.
Not just upsetting them but taking them on
I am convinced Sunak and Hunt are seeking a closer relationship with the EU, as already demonstrated with the WF, and the forthcoming state visit of Charles to France. Furthermore he has an excellent working relationship with UVDL and is seeking to agree with the EU for Brits to use e gates
The ERG and hard Brexiteers are angry as they see their hopes flounder on reality, and no doubt a Starmer government would continue the new entente cordial that was impossible under Johnson and Truss
I think you miss the point that was made on the Ch4 piece. Sunak is one of the Brexiteer Young Turks. Every bit as committed to the project as the ERG. That's why he's screwed.
You can be committed to Brexit without thinking Brexit has to mean turning our backs completely on Europe.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
You got wrong GE as BREXIT Election
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
"Sky News understands Harriet Harman, chair of parliament’s Partygate Inquiry, was in personal contact with Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer’s incoming chief of staff Sue Gray while she was still a civil servant"
Sounds rather mild, but Sky don't get involved in fringe matters unless they sniff a story. Will this have legs after all?
Gray has been friends with SKS for a decade
Her son has been to football matches with SKS and with Harman
I’m not suggesting this implies any impropriety at all, but it is pretty cozy
I feel much more confident about predicting the economic situation than the politics. The Financial situation is looking very clear to me right now. And if Starmer is seeing what I’m seeing, he ain’t going to like it.
I very much get the idea UK -
1 stopped printing money too late, 2 started rate rises to combat inflation too late, 3 was left more exposed to expensive energy imports than similar countries to ours, 4 this biggest tax take ever is pushing up inflation, 5 UKs famous issue with sluggish productivity is pushing up inflation
(when she’s home working I can hear dear GF micro managing her staff all day long - is UK rubbish because we are the micro management capital of the world?)
Certainly all the wage deals - clearly needed when food inflation is 20% for so long! - not just public sector but private sector, is helping to maintain high inflation this year, and if inflation only halves to 5% that’s a nightmare scenario for government restoring incomes.
But when you stop printing money and magicking up electronic money in qualitative easing, how long does the impact of what went on before last for, months, years, through a decade? Has the BOE even stopped magicking money - when Bank of England helps out government by buying government bonds, such as to save pensions industry, is this fuelling inflation?
I’ve got a bad feeling about the UK finances and economy, and household income, not just for this year and 2024, but several years after that too. If there is a change of government, these sort of problems won’t just stop or go away based on that. In fact with swingback to the Tories leaving it increasingly like neither Tories or Lab + Lib getting working majority, that could lower our credit rating increasing our debt payments making our government poorer, whoever forms it - that’s exactly what happened to Frances rating, downgraded on basis protests against macron making it look like weak government.
IMS are gloomy on world growth for the whole of the next 4 years. With BOE now gloomy on halving double digit inflation this year, IMO brits are going to stay struggling for years, and the longevity of this hurts more all the time with nest eggs getting spent and more and more borrowing all just to survive, add in the high grocery prices add in high mortgage rates and rise in repossessions, add in ongoing disruption between worker/union employer/government over incomes and wages, the darker days of this credit squeeze are actually ahead of us, the worst of it will probably come the other side of the next general election.
High government debt, sluggish productivity, taxed to the hilt - its at least another three or four years of crisis, struggle and pain isn’t it?
Please pick me up on anything and crorrect me where wrong.
I'm fairly upbeat about the economy. After May, wage rises will be outpacing inflation, and it seems quite plain that the predicted recession is not actually going to happen.
Interest rates at 4-5% are actually where htey ought to be.
Let’s hope so. I would love my country and it’s people to quickly come out of this crisis.
What you are predicting is also very good news for Starmer and his incoming government next year.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Easy.
In 2017, lots of people loved Magic Grandpa. But even then, there were even more people who hated/feared him enough to go out and vote against him. So he lost.
Meanwhile Blair may not have inspired as much fanatical devotion, even in the early days. But hardly anybody had any reason to fear him.
It's why "First Past The Post" is a bit of a lie. There ain't no post- not a fixed one anyway. The important thing is to be ahead of whoever comes second.
The truth that only SKS seems to understand and not the feckless idiots BJO is friends with, is that for Labour to WIN elections, it must be taking the country as it IS, not as it would wish it to be.
SKSWNBPM
The Rest is Politics just reminded me that Corbyn branded Theresa May's desperate attempt to sort out social care a "Death Tax".
Corbyn is part of the reason we have implacable intergenerational inequality. Why young people won't have kids, why everyone depends on a huge chunk of money from their parents to get on the housing ladder.
Own it, BJO. That was our one big chance to solve it.
Actual Polling % on the day The new SNP being rubbish factor - Yes, No, How many seats involved Tactical voting v UNS New boundaries.
The place to start is: What will be the party polling percentages, and what is the lead.
My current guess is that on the day Labour's lead will be under 10 percentage points, and they would only get a majority (325 seats) if SNP collapse bigly.
I think a 42-35 lead on the day is the most likely scenario.
It is worth dwelling on Scotland for a second. Labour got just one seat there in 2019, against 48 for the SNP. And I could well see them getting 18-20 in 2024, with the SNP under 30 seats. That will make a big difference to Labour's ability to get a majority.
But that still requires 100 gains from the Conservatives. That's not a small ask.
With that said, there will clearly (a) be more tactical voting that in 2019 (when Corbyn was toxic to many LibDem voters), (b) that's quite a swing from Con to Lab.
If you look at the new boundaries, 100 Conservative gains requires Getting to York Outer with a 10,000 vote, 10% Conservative margin. Well, on a seven point national lead, Labour probably gets there.
My gut is that the most likely scenario right now is something between Labour on 300 seats and 335 seats. But they could easily see that range drop to 275-310 or upwards to majority level.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
That was 2017 - by 2019 Corbyn's popularity had disappeared.. Heck Bozo won a majority and large numbers of safe Labour seats voted for Bozo as the "better" option
But the thing is he still lost to May (who ran a godawful campaign) and won only 4 more seats than Gordon Brown and less seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Hardly strikes me as someone who was a electoral success.
I feel much more confident about predicting the economic situation than the politics. The Financial situation is looking very clear to me right now. And if Starmer is seeing what I’m seeing, he ain’t going to like it.
I very much get the idea UK -
1 stopped printing money too late, 2 started rate rises to combat inflation too late, 3 was left more exposed to expensive energy imports than similar countries to ours, 4 this biggest tax take ever is pushing up inflation, 5 UKs famous issue with sluggish productivity is pushing up inflation
(when she’s home working I can hear dear GF micro managing her staff all day long - is UK rubbish because we are the micro management capital of the world?)
Certainly all the wage deals - clearly needed when food inflation is 20% for so long! - not just public sector but private sector, is helping to maintain high inflation this year, and if inflation only halves to 5% that’s a nightmare scenario for government restoring incomes.
But when you stop printing money and magicking up electronic money in qualitative easing, how long does the impact of what went on before last for, months, years, through a decade? Has the BOE even stopped magicking money - when Bank of England helps out government by buying government bonds, such as to save pensions industry, is this fuelling inflation?
I’ve got a bad feeling about the UK finances and economy, and household income, not just for this year and 2024, but several years after that too. If there is a change of government, these sort of problems won’t just stop or go away based on that. In fact with swingback to the Tories leaving it increasingly like neither Tories or Lab + Lib getting working majority, that could lower our credit rating increasing our debt payments making our government poorer, whoever forms it - that’s exactly what happened to Frances rating, downgraded on basis protests against macron making it look like weak government.
IMS are gloomy on world growth for the whole of the next 4 years. With BOE now gloomy on halving double digit inflation this year, IMO brits are going to stay struggling for years, and the longevity of this hurts more all the time with nest eggs getting spent and more and more borrowing all just to survive, add in the high grocery prices add in high mortgage rates and rise in repossessions, add in ongoing disruption between worker/union employer/government over incomes and wages, the darker days of this credit squeeze are actually ahead of us, the worst of it will probably come the other side of the next general election.
High government debt, sluggish productivity, taxed to the hilt - its at least another three or four years of crisis, struggle and pain isn’t it?
Please pick me up on anything and crorrect me where wrong.
I'm fairly upbeat about the economy. After May, wage rises will be outpacing inflation, and it s
Labour has outlined the start of what may become policies.
Good to see the abolition of leasehold in there, especially after the Conservatives appear to have dropped their pledge this week.
I want it backdated. I am in a leasehold and they are scam artists.
About 20% of UK property stock is leasehold IIRC, so a huge number of votes in it. Conservatives have demonstrated this week they care more about a few big developers than millions of home "owners".
It's a good example of the Single Cause Fallacy.
People think that blocks of flats are badly managed because they have landlords who just squeeze the max out of them.
The problem is that RTM companies, or freeholds owned collectively by leaseholders, are often no better. Such companies almost always depend upon a couple of individuals who do all the work. If those individuals leave, or die, then they go to pieces.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
There’s been nothing to suggest the Tories can improve their position. Interest rate rises will bite hard despite inflation slowing. The whole debacle today with the typical ERGers shows how fecked the Tories are
I mean all today has really proved once again is how impotent the ERG are at the moment. As the saw with the Windor deal and now we see again the the repeal bill, the ERG'ers can howl as the moon as much as they link but there's literally nothing they can do.
The fact Rishi's government is upsetting the ERG'ers and they are impotent to do anything about it, should be a plus for the government to be honest.
Not just upsetting them but taking them on
I am convinced Sunak and Hunt are seeking a closer relationship with the EU, as already demonstrated with the WF, and the forthcoming state visit of Charles to France. Furthermore he has an excellent working relationship with UVDL and is seeking to agree with the EU for Brits to use e gates
The ERG and hard Brexiteers are angry as they see their hopes flounder on reality, and no doubt a Starmer government would continue the new entente cordial that was impossible under Johnson and Truss
I think you miss the point that was made on the Ch4 piece. Sunak is one of the Brexiteer Young Turks. Every bit as committed to the project as the ERG. That's why he's screwed.
You can be committed to Brexit without thinking Brexit has to mean turning our backs completely on Europe.
You can't though. Because if you aren't committed to turning your back on Europe, you're a closet Remainer, a traitor to Brexit, an underminer of the Will of the People.
The purists have decreed it so.
I think that all depends whether being positive and friendly with the EU means giving away sovereignty or not.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
You got wrong GE as BREXIT Election
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
You are being daft now. Labours 2017 vote numbers were DEFINITELY inflated by people, who’s main political issue was Brexit, thinking Corbyn was against Brexit and a Labour victory and government would stop Brexit happening.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
I feel much more confident about predicting the economic situation than the politics. The Financial situation is looking very clear to me right now. And if Starmer is seeing what I’m seeing, he ain’t going to like it.
I very much get the idea UK -
1 stopped printing money too late, 2 started rate rises to combat inflation too late, 3 was left more exposed to expensive energy imports than similar countries to ours, 4 this biggest tax take ever is pushing up inflation, 5 UKs famous issue with sluggish productivity is pushing up inflation
(when she’s home working I can hear dear GF micro managing her staff all day long - is UK rubbish because we are the micro management capital of the world?)
Certainly all the wage deals - clearly needed when food inflation is 20% for so long! - not just public sector but private sector, is helping to maintain high inflation this year, and if inflation only halves to 5% that’s a nightmare scenario for government restoring incomes.
But when you stop printing money and magicking up electronic money in qualitative easing, how long does the impact of what went on before last for, months, years, through a decade? Has the BOE even stopped magicking money - when Bank of England helps out government by buying government bonds, such as to save pensions industry, is this fuelling inflation?
I’ve got a bad feeling about the UK finances and economy, and household income, not just for this year and 2024, but several years after that too. If there is a change of government, these sort of problems won’t just stop or go away based on that. In fact with swingback to the Tories leaving it increasingly like neither Tories or Lab + Lib getting working majority, that could lower our credit rating increasing our debt payments making our government poorer, whoever forms it - that’s exactly what happened to Frances rating, downgraded on basis protests against macron making it look like weak government.
IMS are gloomy on world growth for the whole of the next 4 years. With BOE now gloomy on halving double digit inflation this year, IMO brits are going to stay struggling for years, and the longevity of this hurts more all the time with nest eggs getting spent and more and more borrowing all just to survive, add in the high grocery prices add in high mortgage rates and rise in repossessions, add in ongoing disruption between worker/union employer/government over incomes and wages, the darker days of this credit squeeze are actually ahead of us, the worst of it will probably come the other side of the next general election.
High government debt, sluggish productivity, taxed to the hilt - its at least another three or four years of crisis, struggle and pain isn’t it?
Please pick me up on anything and crorrect me where wrong.
I'm fairly upbeat about the economy. After May, wage rises will be outpacing inflation, and it s
Labour has outlined the start of what may become policies.
Good to see the abolition of leasehold in there, especially after the Conservatives appear to have dropped their pledge this week.
I want it backdated. I am in a leasehold and they are scam artists.
About 20% of UK property stock is leasehold IIRC, so a huge number of votes in it. Conservatives have demonstrated this week they care more about a few big developers than millions of home "owners".
It's a good example of the Single Cause Fallacy.
People think that blocks of flats are badly managed because they have landlords who just squeeze the max out of them.
The problem is that RTM companies, or freeholds owned collectively by leaseholders, are often no better. Such companies almost always depend upon a couple of individuals who do all the work. If those individuals leave, or die, then they go to pieces.
So having no say in who does the work and just being presented with a massive bill you have no control over is a better system?
Sure, you can sue the freeholder but they can also hire the best legal counsel in the land and tack their legal fees onto your service charge. A service charge which, I might add, is uncapped and, since you have no choice to pay, offers managing agents absolutely no incentive to seek value for money.
Not to mention the kickbacks. Take a look at the recent FCA report suggesting as much as 60% of insurance charges on blocks of flats is "commission" to the managing agent...
Btw does anyone (especially those who leapt on the Rishi not wearing a seatbelt story) remember that Hattie Harman crashed into another car while talking on her phone (and got a very lenient punishment) and has multiple speeding offences?
Actual Polling % on the day The new SNP being rubbish factor - Yes, No, How many seats involved Tactical voting v UNS New boundaries.
The place to start is: What will be the party polling percentages, and what is the lead.
My current guess is that on the day Labour's lead will be under 10 percentage points, and they would only get a majority (325 seats) if SNP collapse bigly.
I think a 42-35 lead on the day is the most likely scenario.
It is worth dwelling on Scotland for a second. Labour got just one seat there in 2019, against 48 for the SNP. And I could well see them getting 18-20 in 2024, with the SNP under 30 seats. That will make a big difference to Labour's ability to get a majority.
But that still requires 100 gains from the Conservatives. That's not a small ask.
With that said, there will clearly (a) be more tactical voting that in 2019 (when Corbyn was toxic to many LibDem voters), (b) that's quite a swing from Con to Lab.
If you look at the new boundaries, 100 Conservative gains requires Getting to York Outer with a 10,000 vote, 10% Conservative margin. Well, on a seven point national lead, Labour probably gets there.
My gut is that the most likely scenario right now is something between Labour on 300 seats and 335 seats. But they could easily see that range drop to 275-310 or upwards to majority level.
I typed 40% to 34% into Electoral Calculus yesterday and it said Labour short by 2 seats with the new boundaries.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
At a slower rate than the 700,000 immigrants who came here in 2022.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
At a slower rate than the 700,000 immigrants who came here in 2022.
How many would Labour have admitted from Hong Kong and Ukraine?
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
You got wrong GE as BREXIT Election
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
You are being daft now. Labours 2017 vote numbers were DEFINITELY inflated by people, who’s main political issue was Brexit, thinking Corbyn was against Brexit and a Labour victory and government would stop Brexit happening.
Yes, it was a democratic vote to prevent the Tories imposing a hard Brexit, and it worked for a couple of years too. Ultimately neither side was willing to support a middle path to EEA or similar, and I don't think will in the future either. Both Leavers and Remainers will see EEA-like status as a step towards Rejoin.
Actual Polling % on the day The new SNP being rubbish factor - Yes, No, How many seats involved Tactical voting v UNS New boundaries.
The place to start is: What will be the party polling percentages, and what is the lead.
My current guess is that on the day Labour's lead will be under 10 percentage points, and they would only get a majority (325 seats) if SNP collapse bigly.
I think a 42-35 lead on the day is the most likely scenario.
It is worth dwelling on Scotland for a second. Labour got just one seat there in 2019, against 48 for the SNP. And I could well see them getting 18-20 in 2024, with the SNP under 30 seats. That will make a big difference to Labour's ability to get a majority.
But that still requires 100 gains from the Conservatives. That's not a small ask.
With that said, there will clearly (a) be more tactical voting that in 2019 (when Corbyn was toxic to many LibDem voters), (b) that's quite a swing from Con to Lab.
If you look at the new boundaries, 100 Conservative gains requires Getting to York Outer with a 10,000 vote, 10% Conservative margin. Well, on a seven point national lead, Labour probably gets there.
My gut is that the most likely scenario right now is something between Labour on 300 seats and 335 seats. But they could easily see that range drop to 275-310 or upwards to majority level.
I typed 40% to 34% into Electoral Calculus yesterday and it said Labour short by 2 seats with the new boundaries.
Is that on UNS? Because the final score will be better for Labour and worse for the Conservatives than UNS. How much so remains to be seen.
To return to one of my favourite facts- the Conservative share barely shifted from 1979 to 1992. And that gave a working win, a mega landslide, a big landslide and an awfully tight win. If the big two shares are 40-34, Labour will have a comfortable enough majority to govern.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
You got wrong GE as BREXIT Election
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
You are being daft now. Labours 2017 vote numbers were DEFINITELY inflated by people, who’s main political issue was Brexit, thinking Corbyn was against Brexit and a Labour victory and government would stop Brexit happening.
That's right. 2 Brexit elections. In the 1st one it boosted Corbyn. In the 2nd one the opposite, it dragged him down. True 'par' Corbyn appeal was somewhere between the 2. But what happens is his fans make out the good election was him and not Brexit, and the bad one was Brexit not him, whereas his critics come out with the reverse bullshit that the good one was Brexit not him, and the bad one was him not Brexit.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Electorate in 2019 was 47m Electorate in 2017 was 46.1m Electorate in 1997 was 44.2m Electorate in 1992 was 43.7m
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
Do those people vote in general elections?
Once putting on gloves for an added sanitary factor.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
I think people are just trolling now as I refuse to believe no one can understand the concept of doing pretty well (certainly vs expectations) but still losing (and indeed not being the most popular party in the UK).
What's the point crowing about being 'popular' if the other side is still demonstrably more popular, even when they went backwards?
On these stories about Boris raging and swearing about various matters, I don't really understand the goal of the stories. They seem to be presented as positive for him in showing his rage at betrayal, inviting supporters to share in that anger, but that sort of reaction just looks hysterial and childish. Be angry at people quitting, sure, that's natural, but some faux tough vulgarity which the target was not even present for?
I certainly don't buy the ludicrous attempt to reframe his premiership by insisting that he wanted to completely change economic direction and was just about to do it for reals you guys, but in a remarkable coincidence he was ousted before he could do it. He only had 3 years to try it after all, or the better part of a year to at least announce it following the worst of Covid.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
That does rather well demonstrate quite how unpopular Corbyn must have been at the same time
Labour lost that election by over 60 seats ROFL. If Corbyn was so popular why did he lose?
Brexit was playing with things back then. Labour got stop Brexit votes 2017 many of them probably from people who didn’t even vote in 2016.
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
You got wrong GE as BREXIT Election
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
You are being daft now. Labours 2017 vote numbers were DEFINITELY inflated by people, who’s main political issue was Brexit, thinking Corbyn was against Brexit and a Labour victory and government would stop Brexit happening.
That's right. 2 Brexit elections. In the 1st one it boosted Corbyn. In the 2nd one the opposite, it dragged him down. True 'par' Corbyn appeal was somewhere between the 2. But what happens is his fans make out the good election was him and not Brexit, and the bad one was Brexit not him, whereas his critics come out with the reverse bullshit that the good one was Brexit not him, and the bad one was him not Brexit.
Yours, Mr 'So Judicious It Hurts'.
I think that's slightly harsh but not wrong. In 2017 Corbyn managed to get away with seeming Brexity to Leave voters because of his clear Bennite anti-Common Market views from the 1980s and seeming to want to Remain to Remain voters because that was the policy of the Labour Party. By 2019 it was impossible to remain on the fence and his attempts to get back onto the 2017 position just made him look untrustworthy to both sides.
On these stories about Boris raging and swearing about various matters, I don't really understand the goal of the stories. They seem to be presented as positive for him in showing his rage at betrayal, inviting supporters to share in that anger, but that sort of reaction just looks hysterial and childish. Be angry at people quitting, sure, that's natural, but some faux tough vulgarity which the target was not even present for?
I certainly don't buy the ludicrous attempt to reframe his premiership by insisting that he wanted to completely change economic direction and was just about to do it for reals you guys, but in a remarkable coincidence he was ousted before he could do it. He only had 3 years to try it after all, or the better part of a year to at least announce it following the worst of Covid.
Americans like anger in their leaders. Brits prefer stoicism.
The truth that only SKS seems to understand and not the feckless idiots BJO is friends with, is that for Labour to WIN elections, it must be taking the country as it IS, not as it would wish it to be.
SKSWNBPM
BJOWNAJCWU*
(* BJO Will Never Admit Jeremy Corbyn Was Unelectable)
Have you considered this is becoming a bit of a ritual now Anabob?
We only raise this because we care about you, and so you can appreciate the concern that we all have. We are certainly not wagging a finger or anything. You may benefit from seeing a trained professional, just to talk through this truss issue you are experiencing and it’s related psychosis, someone who can provide expect insights. They may say leave off the bath salts and anaboblic steroids - especially taking them together, with alcohol - in which case, let’s appreciate they know what they are talking about and try to pay attention.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
Do those people vote in general elections?
Once putting on gloves for an added sanitary factor.
I've no idea what you're on about
Well you did place me into the “confirmed as utterly barking” category alongside Dura Ace.
Did you notice, the freebie given away with tomorrows Daily Star is witches spells?
Do you have Daily Star in Scotland, or is it called Daily Northern lights or something?
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
From 1983 to 2019 the Conservatives were in government for almost twice as long as Labour.
Ah, he's picked out a new mouthpiece. Elon Musk says that he has found a new chief executive to lead Twitter.
He announced the news on the social media platform, which he bought last year for $44bn (£35.2bn).
Mr Musk did not name the site's new boss but said "she" would start in six weeks, at which point he would become executive chairman and chief technology officer. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65562289
I feel like any mention of him buying it for $44bn should remind people he sought to pull out of the deal to buy it (and if doing so was a tactic to drive the price down, it failed).
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
At a slower rate than the 700,000 immigrants who came here in 2022.
How many would Labour have admitted from Hong Kong and Ukraine?
Trick question.
If Corbyn had been in charge, he would have supported peace in Ukraine and therefore there would be no Ukrainian refugees.
Now, I grant you that his version of peace would have involved the Ukrainians laying down their weapons and inviting the Russians in. But that's still peace, right?
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
From 1983 to 2019 the Conservatives were in government for almost twice as long as Labour.
Yes to be historical about it, Windrush immigration was under the Tories, Ted Heaths record was to let a lot of Asians in? But the point being, Conservatives were different then, with very different views than now - Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath. This is taking your point, which I agree is a fair one, and stirring it in a bowl with some other ingredients: should the children suffer for sins of the parents?
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
We trust Conservative governments to take a firm line to protect our security.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
The truth that only SKS seems to understand and not the feckless idiots BJO is friends with, is that for Labour to WIN elections, it must be taking the country as it IS, not as it would wish it to be.
No.
Obviously, he must purge the heretics until the Labour Party stands for True Socialism. All three of them. And the one in the far left looks a bit dodgy…..
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
From 1983 to 2019 the Conservatives were in government for almost twice as long as Labour.
Yes to be historical about it, Windrush immigration was under the Tories, Ted Heaths record was to let a lot of Asians in? But the point being, Conservatives were different then, with very different views than now - Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath. This is taking your point, which I agree is a fair one, and stirring it in a bowl with some other ingredients: should the children suffer for sins of the parents?
"Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath."
Yes of course it would. Because he was the fecking idiot who took us in in the first place.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
From 1983 to 2019 the Conservatives were in government for almost twice as long as Labour.
Yes to be historical about it, Windrush immigration was under the Tories, Ted Heaths record was to let a lot of Asians in? But the point being, Conservatives were different then, with very different views than now - Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath. This is taking your point, which I agree is a fair one, and stirring it in a bowl with some other ingredients: should the children suffer for sins of the parents?
"Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath."
Yes of course it would. Because he was the fecking idiot who took us in in the first place.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
The police let hundreds of street groomers continuously rape teenagers over years without investigation. They make up shit to ruin politician's careers. They shoot innocent people as "terrorists". Yet never any accountability.
"Why the Tories should back proportional representation Received wisdom says voting reform could kill off the Conservatives. That’s not how it’s worked in Europe. By John Oxley" (£)
Btw does anyone (especially those who leapt on the Rishi not wearing a seatbelt story) remember that Hattie Harman crashed into another car while talking on her phone (and got a very lenient punishment) and has multiple speeding offences?
I don’t remember any of those stories
Is that the Harriet who grew up on Hamilton Terrace, NW8. Which is, how shall we put it, not the grittiest street in north London?
Btw does anyone (especially those who leapt on the Rishi not wearing a seatbelt story) remember that Hattie Harman crashed into another car while talking on her phone (and got a very lenient punishment) and has multiple speeding offences?
I don’t remember any of those stories
Is that the Harriet who grew up on Hamilton Terrace, NW8. Which is, how shall we put it, not the grittiest street in north London?
Harriet Harman is a very distant cousin of mine. Which also makes her a very distant cousin of Keith Moon.
Btw does anyone (especially those who leapt on the Rishi not wearing a seatbelt story) remember that Hattie Harman crashed into another car while talking on her phone (and got a very lenient punishment) and has multiple speeding offences?
I don’t remember any of those stories
Is that the Harriet who grew up on Hamilton Terrace, NW8. Which is, how shall we put it, not the grittiest street in north London?
Harriet Harman is a very distant cousin of mine. Which also makes her a very distant cousin of Keith Moon.
Btw does anyone (especially those who leapt on the Rishi not wearing a seatbelt story) remember that Hattie Harman crashed into another car while talking on her phone (and got a very lenient punishment) and has multiple speeding offences?
I don’t remember any of those stories
Is that the Harriet who grew up on Hamilton Terrace, NW8. Which is, how shall we put it, not the grittiest street in north London?
Harriet Harman is a very distant cousin of mine. Which also makes her a very distant cousin of Keith Moon.
Doesn’t that make you a Longford?
No, he married in. The Harmans are an old Wealden family.
ENGLAND VOTERS for Labour Party at General Election:
2017: Corbyn 11.4 million 1997: Blair 11.3 million 1992: Kinnock 9.6 million 2019: Corbyn 9.2 million 2001: Blair 9.1 million 2015: Miliband 8.1 million 2005: Blair 8.0 million 1987: Kinnock 8.0 million 2010: Brown 7.0 million 1983: Foot 6.9 million
Just as a matter of interest, has the population increased in that time?
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Of course the popular increased during that time. Labour were in power and let them all in.
From 1983 to 2019 the Conservatives were in government for almost twice as long as Labour.
Yes to be historical about it, Windrush immigration was under the Tories, Ted Heaths record was to let a lot of Asians in? But the point being, Conservatives were different then, with very different views than now - Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath. This is taking your point, which I agree is a fair one, and stirring it in a bowl with some other ingredients: should the children suffer for sins of the parents?
"Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath."
Yes of course it would. Because he was the fecking idiot who took us in in the first place.
And, more generally, because he was a man who got just about everything wrong.
I well remember his spiteful, pathetic and completely futile sniping against his successor during her Prime Ministership.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
She has been living here 7 years.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
She has been living here 7 years.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
The police have always been able to create a pretext to arrest and detain people, the issue is their misjudgements now get rapidly publicised on social media, etc; therefore making them look stupid.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
She has been living here 7 years.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
I do sense that the Met police have been put in a difficult position, at a time when they are already have made a mess of their own making. Whilst the Coronation was a success from a PR perspective the amount of media interest in the dubious arrests has undermined what should have been a policing success story, the UK really does need a deep dig (Royal Commission) into what policing in the UK (esp in London) should look like
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
Not just makes them look incompetent, but proves that they are...
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
I'd say it is more representative of the improvement in approach since Sunak took over, but they are essentially fixing the mess that they themselves caused; so it is hard to give them much credit.
I do agree that Badenoch is one of the better politicians though.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
She has been living here 7 years.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
The problem is that the police arrested protesters before they'd done anything that merited arrest. If you are arresting people who haven't done anything wrong then you will end up, well, arresting people who haven't done anything wrong - including those who had no intention of doing anything wrong (however you wish to define "doing anything wrong" for whatever context).
Comments
Maybe not even a plurality.
But enough to get Starmer into Downing Street, I hope.
Interest rates at 4-5% are actually where htey ought to be.
The big question coming out of last week's voting is how much of what we saw was "anyone but the Conservatives". My hunch is quite a lot. And that's good news for a Labour majority, because in most swing constituencies, abC = Labour. However beige they are.
Sounds rather mild, but Sky don't get involved in fringe matters unless they sniff a story. Will this have legs after all?
77% do not care very much or at all
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1656670495574745095?t=bHD02giKDcFU6xkh3yb3Eg&s=19
And many of these voters didn’t know the true Jeremy in 2017 either. What BJO doesn’t mention is telling in itself, the direction in travel from 2017. Two years later Corbyn delivered the worse Labour result for 100 years in seats, and a stinking reputation not so easily fought back from. Boris wasn’t even all that popular in 2019, voters had to hold their noses voting Boris because Corbyn and his dangerous crew around him was the alternative.
If I suddenly go silent, It's because I've chained myself to a tree in Granton and my phone is dead.
A huge amount of seats almost went Tory/Lib Dem but didn’t quite. If that happens this time the Tories will be down into the 100s of seats.
2019 was oven ready deal Election SKS 2nd Referendum policy deserved a drubbing
Her son has been to football matches with SKS and with Harman
I’m not suggesting this implies any impropriety at all, but it is pretty cozy
What you are predicting is also very good news for Starmer and his incoming government next year.
In 2017, lots of people loved Magic Grandpa. But even then, there were even more people who hated/feared him enough to go out and vote against him. So he lost.
Meanwhile Blair may not have inspired as much fanatical devotion, even in the early days. But hardly anybody had any reason to fear him.
It's why "First Past The Post" is a bit of a lie. There ain't no post- not a fixed one anyway. The important thing is to be ahead of whoever comes second.
Corbyn is part of the reason we have implacable intergenerational inequality. Why young people won't have kids, why everyone depends on a huge chunk of money from their parents to get on the housing ladder.
Own it, BJO. That was our one big chance to solve it.
It is worth dwelling on Scotland for a second. Labour got just one seat there in 2019, against 48 for the SNP. And I could well see them getting 18-20 in 2024, with the SNP under 30 seats. That will make a big difference to Labour's ability to get a majority.
But that still requires 100 gains from the Conservatives. That's not a small ask.
With that said, there will clearly (a) be more tactical voting that in 2019 (when Corbyn was toxic to many LibDem voters), (b) that's quite a swing from Con to Lab.
If you look at the new boundaries, 100 Conservative gains requires Getting to York Outer with a 10,000 vote, 10% Conservative margin. Well, on a seven point national lead, Labour probably gets there.
My gut is that the most likely scenario right now is something between Labour on 300 seats and 335 seats. But they could easily see that range drop to 275-310 or upwards to majority level.
Hardly strikes me as someone who was a electoral success.
People think that blocks of flats are badly managed because they have landlords who just squeeze the max out of them.
The problem is that RTM companies, or freeholds owned collectively by leaseholders, are often no better. Such companies almost always depend upon a couple of individuals who do all the work. If those individuals leave, or die, then they go to pieces.
I ask because it might be a little misleading to use raw vote numbers.
Sure, you can sue the freeholder but they can also hire the best legal counsel in the land and tack their legal fees onto your service charge. A service charge which, I might add, is uncapped and, since you have no choice to pay, offers managing agents absolutely no incentive to seek value for money.
Not to mention the kickbacks. Take a look at the recent FCA report suggesting as much as 60% of insurance charges on blocks of flats is "commission" to the managing agent...
Abolish it. Now.
I don’t remember any of those stories
To return to one of my favourite facts- the Conservative share barely shifted from 1979 to 1992. And that gave a working win, a mega landslide, a big landslide and an awfully tight win. If the big two shares are 40-34, Labour will have a comfortable enough majority to govern.
Yours, Mr 'So Judicious It Hurts'.
Electorate in 2017 was 46.1m
Electorate in 1997 was 44.2m
Electorate in 1992 was 43.7m
Page 31 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf
What's the point crowing about being 'popular' if the other side is still demonstrably more popular, even when they went backwards?
I certainly don't buy the ludicrous attempt to reframe his premiership by insisting that he wanted to completely change economic direction and was just about to do it for reals you guys, but in a remarkable coincidence he was ousted before he could do it. He only had 3 years to try it after all, or the better part of a year to at least announce it following the worst of Covid.
T
R
U
S
S
Imagine that there was another Truss waiting in the queue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjIJuQrdhDw
This will of course happen as they realize that having net migration double what it was whilst still in the EU isn’t a good look .
I hope it is treating him well.
Here's a handy chart showing progress so far: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/cpi-inflation-april-2023.html
Make of that what you will.
Which makes me wonder if this is what we should make of that Defence Ministry statement: "Never believe anything until it is officially denied?"
(* BJO Will Never Admit Jeremy Corbyn Was Unelectable)
We only raise this because we care about you, and so you can appreciate the concern that we all have. We are certainly not wagging a finger or anything. You may benefit from seeing a trained professional, just to talk through this truss issue you are experiencing and it’s related psychosis, someone who can provide expect insights. They may say leave off the bath salts and anaboblic steroids - especially taking them together, with alcohol - in which case, let’s appreciate they know what they are talking about and try to pay attention.
Did you notice, the freebie given away with tomorrows Daily Star is witches spells?
Do you have Daily Star in Scotland, or is it called Daily Northern lights or something?
B
J
O
I
S
P
O
I
N
T
L
E
S
S
Well you will, when you’re in it.
Elon Musk says that he has found a new chief executive to lead Twitter.
He announced the news on the social media platform, which he bought last year for $44bn (£35.2bn).
Mr Musk did not name the site's new boss but said "she" would start in six weeks, at which point he would become executive chairman and chief technology officer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65562289
I feel like any mention of him buying it for $44bn should remind people he sought to pull out of the deal to buy it (and if doing so was a tactic to drive the price down, it failed).
If Corbyn had been in charge, he would have supported peace in Ukraine and therefore there would be no Ukrainian refugees.
Now, I grant you that his version of peace would have involved the Ukrainians laying down their weapons and inviting the Russians in. But that's still peace, right?
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-fan-detained-for-13-hours-after-wrongful-arrest-at-kings-coronation-12878740
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
Labour need to split up the Met.
But the point being, Conservatives were different then, with very different views than now - Dave Cameron’s EU ref would have appalled Heath.
This is taking your point, which I agree is a fair one, and stirring it in a bowl with some other ingredients: should the children suffer for sins of the parents?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
Obviously, he must purge the heretics until the Labour Party stands for True Socialism. All three of them. And the one in the far left looks a bit dodgy…..
Yes of course it would. Because he was the fecking idiot who took us in in the first place.
Received wisdom says voting reform could kill off the Conservatives. That’s not how it’s worked in Europe.
By John Oxley" (£)
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/05/tories-should-back-proportional-representation
Which also makes her a very distant cousin of Keith Moon.
The Harmans are an old Wealden family.
Harriet’s branch went to London and got airs.
I well remember his spiteful, pathetic and completely futile sniping against his successor during her Prime Ministership.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
Those T-55 tanks that the Russians have started to deploy, seem to be working about as well as expected.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/11/kemi-badenoch-makes-enemies-with-narcissistic-commons-appearance
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
I do agree that Badenoch is one of the better politicians though.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1656616385970073601?t=mKSr-rmacGNqa0eBwxyZjg&s=19