So why is promising to fix pot holes and non functioning junctions appealing to Mr Toad? Surely it is just the sort of “shovel ready” projects that all governments turn to when they have run out of time and failed to deliver their big projects. And boy, has this government run out of time.
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
I have voted 6 times in that petition using legit Welsh post codes and received emails confirming my vote.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
I am doubtful that it will be more than 36, and it likely will be less.
In 1997 a lot of LD and Lab seats were won unexpectedly, but having been active in the 1997 election the feel is very different now. The Tories are looking very dog eared and fixated on internal battles the same as 1997, but there isn't the same mood of optimism for Starmer that there was for Blair.
Might that encourage more tactical voting though? There would have been plenty in 1997 who voted in Tory-LD marginals for Blair, because they liked what they saw. Whereas now they would be casting a primarily negative vote and caring less about who defeats the Tory MP.
I agree, every election is different and you can only go so far with precedent.
I haven't placed much yet in the way of bets on the next GE.
Not sure of the etiquette of this, but you don’t ask you don’t get, so…
Tomorrow I’m doing the Yorkshire Three Peaks Challenge. 24 miles and 5200ft worth of climbing over Yorkshire’s three highest peaks in under 12 hours. I, and around 20 other willing victims, are doing it memory of a friend of mine’s son, Isaac, who died in April at four months old after enduring four open heart surgeries.
We’re raising money for a charity called the Children’s Heart Surgery Fund, which supports the Leeds Congenital Heart Unit at Leeds General Infirmary.
I might be cheeky and drop this link in again later and tomorrow, so please bear with me. If you’re lucky and the phone signal holds up I might even post some pictures of trig points and heavy autumnal rainfall on bleak Yorkshire fells.
Okay. Best of luck. I'll be honest, and say that the third peak is incredibly difficult to achieve.
I see Mihály Csíkszentmihályi is celebrated by the Google logo today. His idea of "flow" (a focussed mental state that can be very creative and productive) was commended on this site by @MTimT - we haven't seen anything of him for a long time. Last we heard he was off to somewhere like Tashkent I hope he got back okay.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
I am doubtful that it will be more than 36, and it likely will be less.
In 1997 a lot of LD and Lab seats were won unexpectedly, but having been active in the 1997 election the feel is very different now. The Tories are looking very dog eared and fixated on internal battles the same as 1997, but there isn't the same mood of optimism for Starmer that there was for Blair.
I just wish Downing Street would cease these daily issues of this and that alleged "policy". The Tory vote would go up if they just shut up for a week even a month.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
I have voted 6 times in that petition using legit Welsh post codes and received emails confirming my vote.
I simply do not understand the logic in signing a petition you are opposed to in an attempt to debase it, when all you are doing is adding to the petition and the publics perception here in Wales of the strength of opposition to the legislation
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
The Conservatives are indeed a very heavily tax-raising party.
By 2010 Brown had built a public sector which could only be funded by tens of billions of financial sector taxes. When that dried up a frankly terrifying structural deficit appeared and we have spent the last 13 years trying to close it. We were getting there until Covid and Ukraine blew us off course again but that is the context of all financial decisions since 2008.
Cuts have proven very unpopular so tax has to be raised from other sources. Anyone kidding themselves that these problems will magically disappear when SKS becomes PM is delusional.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
I have voted 6 times in that petition using legit Welsh post codes and received emails confirming my vote.
I simply do not understand the logic in signing a petition you are opposed to in an attempt to debase it, when all you are doing is adding to the petition and the publics perception here in Wales of the strength of opposition to the legislation
Me neither but I am sure it is not unique to this petition.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
I have voted 6 times in that petition using legit Welsh post codes and received emails confirming my vote.
I simply do not understand the logic in signing a petition you are opposed to in an attempt to debase it, when all you are doing is adding to the petition and the publics perception here in Wales of the strength of opposition to the legislation
Me neither but I am sure it is not unique to this petition.
Seems likely that rather more motorist’s friends from across the border have signed multiple times to pump it up, than TSEs have voted to debase it.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
The Conservatives are indeed a very heavily tax-raising party.
And, that's only going to go in one direction due to demographic drag - we will keep having to raise taxes just to stand still, which of course will depress risk taking and ambition in the economy further.
It's probably stand in the bucket and try and pull yourself up stuff.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
Children spend about 14% of their time in school. The other 86% of the time... elsewhere.
Yes but schools are particularly dangerous due to the interaction of large numbers of children with cars, buses, etc
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
I have voted 6 times in that petition using legit Welsh post codes and received emails confirming my vote.
I simply do not understand the logic in signing a petition you are opposed to in an attempt to debase it, when all you are doing is adding to the petition and the publics perception here in Wales of the strength of opposition to the legislation
It is sweet you think these petitions have any impact on our parliamentarians.
Well 2 pieces of bad news yesterday: son lost job after challenging health & safety conditions at work during recent high temperatures - people fainting etc (appealing but holds out little hope so looking for other jobs) and someone v dear to us has been diagnosed with very early chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. Bugger.
Dread what today will bring. Everything seemed to be going ok .... I should have realised it wouldn't last.
Many sympathies, Cyclefree. Hope the appeal does succeed - many employers would be wary of bad publicity in that sort of situation.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
Presumably they only act when people complain. Have you complained to Ipso about the Express’s content?
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
An article by the Home Secretary should be held to higher standards, particularly when she's engaging in race/religious baiting.
Well 2 pieces of bad news yesterday: son lost job after challenging health & safety conditions at work during recent high temperatures - people fainting etc (appealing but holds out little hope so looking for other jobs) and someone v dear to us has been diagnosed with very early chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. Bugger.
Dread what today will bring. Everything seemed to be going ok .... I should have realised it wouldn't last.
I wouldn't look on the losing of a job over H&S concerns as bad news - sounds like he is well out of a place that is dangerous. And run by idiots.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Campaigning against 20mph zones is one thing, but cancelling them once they’ve been introduced is politically very tough. It means you take ownership of all the serious injuries and deaths linked to the higher speed limits that you are responsible for enabling. Another reason why politics by headline polling is not smart.
The other aspect of this, of course, is that central government continues to determine what local government is allowed to do, and not allowed to do - at the same to as loading legal obligations on what they must deliver, while continuing to underfund them.
Early on in Thatcher's period in government, Conservatives talked about decentralisation of government. Ever since, they have been centralisers every bit as much as Labour, if not more so.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
I am doubtful that it will be more than 36, and it likely will be less.
In 1997 a lot of LD and Lab seats were won unexpectedly, but having been active in the 1997 election the feel is very different now. The Tories are looking very dog eared and fixated on internal battles the same as 1997, but there isn't the same mood of optimism for Starmer that there was for Blair.
The Lib Dems had a much stronger base in local government in 1997 than they do today. Their victories tended to be in places of long-standing strength on local councils.
I agree.
Indeed, the Lib Dems had slightly more councillors than the Tories across the country at the time of the 1997 General Election (I think they lost that lead on the day of the 1997 General Election - there were actually quite a few Tory gains that day on higher GE turnout and against a dire set of post-Black Friday locals in 1993).
There has been a strong Lib Dem recovery in local government in recent years such that you could, if you were desperately sad and had way too much time on your hands, walk from Tunbridge Wells to the River Tamar never leaving a Lib Dem-controlled council. But the gap is still quite large - just under 3,000 compared with just over 5,700 blues. That will probably close somewhat next year and in 2025 as the 2021 elections (encompassing delayed 2020 elections) were very good for the Tories and only middling for the Lib Dems. But it's still an important contrast from 1997.
The Lib Dems would be wise not to over-target at the General Election as they have in several successive elections. 25-30 MPs would feel a bit deflating to the more pumped up Lib Dems, but would actually be a decent result in terms of being back on the map.
They will be watching the SNP/Labour fight in Scotland as more than interested observers. It's vital for Labour in terms of securing a majority, but very important for the Lib Dems too as a return to being third party in the Commons is important in terms of media coverage - the Lib Dems have some control over how they perform themselves, but much of it is out of their control in central belt Scottish seats where, with a tiny handful of exceptions, they are irrelevant.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
An article by the Home Secretary should be held to higher standards, particularly when she's engaging in race/religious baiting.
Her behaviour is a disgrace and I don’t defend it. But I fear this sort of “correction” will do more harm than good. If she had said that these grooming gangs were disproportionately British Pakistani she would have been correct. The whole issue will be stirred up again.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
Presumably they only act when people complain. Have you complained to Ipso about the Express’s content?
Don’t be ridiculous. I have a life. Talking of which, laters.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
I suspect the majority of petitioners remain of the opinion that 30 to 20 is a blanket change. As you have outlined it isn't! It has been the work of local authorities to manage this and some have done better than others.
The Conservatives (driven from Westminster) have been utterly abject in their inconsistency.
I am off to Newport now and I don't approve of the ridiculous 50mph zone from Tredegar House to the Coldra, it is stupid! But I am fully on board with "20 is plenty ". I wasn't, but I now see the method behind the madness.
..Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
So the Mail is arguing it's entitled to be a mouthpiece for government without performing basic journalism (ie checking facts) - and Braverman confirmed she was happy for them to publish a lie on her behalf.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
I think this is exactly the kind of error that needs correcting. First, it is demonstrably false. Second, it is likely to have stirred up racial hatred. Third, it was written by the Home Secretary, and so would carry more weight than something written by a random hack. If not for correcting this kind of malicious falsehood, what is the regulator for?
Well 2 pieces of bad news yesterday: son lost job after challenging health & safety conditions at work during recent high temperatures - people fainting etc (appealing but holds out little hope so looking for other jobs) and someone v dear to us has been diagnosed with very early chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. Bugger.
Dread what today will bring. Everything seemed to be going ok .... I should have realised it wouldn't last.
I wouldn't look on the losing of a job over H&S concerns as bad news - sounds like he is well out of a place that is dangerous. And run by idiots.
Commiserations on the later piece of news.
Is a claim for wrongful dismissal in order - or had he not been in the job long enough ? In any event, what utter ****s.
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
The Conservatives are indeed a very heavily tax-raising party.
By 2010 Brown had built a public sector which could only be funded by tens of billions of financial sector taxes. When that dried up a frankly terrifying structural deficit appeared and we have spent the last 13 years trying to close it. We were getting there until Covid and Ukraine blew us off course again but that is the context of all financial decisions since 2008.
Cuts have proven very unpopular so tax has to be raised from other sources. Anyone kidding themselves that these problems will magically disappear when SKS becomes PM is delusional.
The problems won't magically disappear but they can be ameliorated by making the tax base simpler, flatter and more consistent.
Taxing some people 75-80% and others 20% is inefficient and counterproductive.
The Conservatives used to believe in this, which is why they used to be worth voting for.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
Presumably they were investigating complaints, rather than "choosing" a particular lie. "Error" unduly dignifies the parties involved.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
I think this is exactly the kind of error that needs correcting. First, it is demonstrably false. Second, it is likely to have stirred up racial hatred. Third, it was written by the Home Secretary, and so would carry more weight than something written by a random hack. If not for correcting this kind of malicious falsehood, what is the regulator for?
Since it was double checked with Braverman, can we call it what it clearly was: a deliberate lie ?
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
The Conservatives are indeed a very heavily tax-raising party.
By 2010 Brown had built a public sector which could only be funded by tens of billions of financial sector taxes. When that dried up a frankly terrifying structural deficit appeared and we have spent the last 13 years trying to close it. We were getting there until Covid and Ukraine blew us off course again but that is the context of all financial decisions since 2008.
Cuts have proven very unpopular so tax has to be raised from other sources. Anyone kidding themselves that these problems will magically disappear when SKS becomes PM is delusional.
The problems won't magically disappear but they can be ameliorated by making the tax base simpler, flatter and more consistent.
Taxing some people 75-80% and others 20% is inefficient and counterproductive.
The Conservatives used to believe in this, which is why they used to be worth voting for.
Those are marginal rates. They are bad, but I think you have to be clear that they’re marginal rates. No-one is taxed overall at 75-80% rate.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
I think this is exactly the kind of error that needs correcting. First, it is demonstrably false. Second, it is likely to have stirred up racial hatred. Third, it was written by the Home Secretary, and so would carry more weight than something written by a random hack. If not for correcting this kind of malicious falsehood, what is the regulator for?
Since it was double checked with Braverman, can we call it what it clearly was: a deliberate lie ?
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
GDP tracking at 0.6% up YoY, I think the current quarter will be pretty poor, around -0.2% and the 4th quarter at or just above 0 so we're heading for about 0.3-0.4% annual growth. Pretty anaemic. But what we have seen is there was much more capacity to raise interest rates faster and earlier than than the BoE has done. Had the ONS not fucked it we'd probably be talking about whether the BoE will be the first central bank to fire the monetary loosening gun early next year as cyclical inflation falls out of the calculation.
As it stands we're in a high interest rate, low growth environment for the next year at least because domestically generated inflation was allowed to run wild by keeping rates too low for too long in order to "protect the economy" or whatever wording the BoE used, when in fact the economy was likely closer to overheating in 2021 and 2022.
This will be interesting. Since the Republicans in Congress are unable to command a majority to vote for their risible "impeachment enquiry", do subpoenas issued on its behalf have any legal standing ?
This was precisely why the the Democratic Congress ended up holding such a vote on Trump's impeachment.
01.19.20 OLC issued an opinion stating an "impeachment inquiry" is INVALID unless a formal vote has been held to authorize it. McCarthy hasn't held a vote. Does he have the votes he needs to authorize the inquiry? Can he compel production of docs? Are subpoenas valid? https://twitter.com/KathyGirouard/status/1707641725869781121
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
Children spend about 14% of their time in school. The other 86% of the time... elsewhere.
Yes but schools are particularly dangerous due to the interaction of large numbers of children with cars, buses, etc
But only for a brief period. Rest of the time they are either in school, so not exposed to drivers, or out of school, same children over a much wider area over a much longer time. And less predictably so. What do you want, them only playing indoors with their Playstations all the time? Children have been driven indoors by drivers already far too much.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
I suspect the majority of petitioners remain of the opinion that 30 to 20 is a blanket change. As you have outlined it isn't! It has been the work of local authorities to manage this and some have done better than others.
The Conservatives (driven from Westminster) have been utterly abject in their inconsistency.
I am off to Newport now and I don't approve of the ridiculous 50mph zone from Tredegar House to the Coldra, it is stupid! But I am fully on board with "20 is plenty ". I wasn't, but I now see the method behind the madness.
In some senses I don't mind the inconsistency as that is sort of what local democracy is about.
There was a Tory councillor from Cornwall on Today earlier debating the issue with some other Tory from elsewhere. Cornwall is a notable area of Tory electoral success in recent years, so they clearly know their residents pretty well and he was all in favour of 20mph. Fair enough, and maybe those in another part of the country have different residents and a different view.
This is what slightly annoys me about Downing Street wading in. Sunak is meant to be the PM of a pretty important world power - a Security Council and G8 member. I don't really get what he's meant to be doing d1cking about with a "review" of whether people in Polperro should be allowed to drive down the high street fractionally faster or slower - let Cllr Bob Nobody worry about it and see if he gets re-elected or not.
I get that it's part of a low level electoral calculation to be all string-backed driving gloves and hang a pine air-freshener on the rear view mirror, but I can't help but think it just makes Sunak look small and trivial. When Brown was trying to hold it togather at the fag end of New Labour, at least he personally looked like a substantial figure, doing Big Things on Important Stuff with Obama, Sarkozy and Merkel. It probably saved Labour a fair few seats in 2010 - he still clearly lost, but it wasn't a meltdown.
Sunak is in danger of getting into a John Major area of appearing to be way out of his depth and out of ideas, and retreating into stuff that is beneath his pay grade. The Cones Hotline wasn't an awful idea (it didn't work but wasn't some kind of horrific blunder or actively nasty policy) - the absurdity was the idea that it was a signature policy from the PM of the United Kingdom.
I note too that local journalists are much better at challenging our politicians than the supine national ones. Rishis round has been as bad as the infamous Truss local interviews.
That was in July 22 and long before it became law in Wales
The controversy continues unabated in Wales but in the last few days speeds in 20mph zones have increased to circa 25mph and in some cases back near 30mph unless a driver is following the 20mph when the traffic soon backs up
The legislation has its place, but the implementation is the issue here in Wales no more so than the difference between Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Gwynedd) and in Delyn and Alyn and Deeside as explained in this article
I expect changes will be made by LA's but it is a live issue here and needs sensible compromise
The one Welsh county where 20mph backlash is muted
Why not read the article which provides a commentary on the present controversy than quote an out of date poll
Furthermore, as I said enforcement is not taking place outside the 20mph zones around schools that were 20mph long before the legislation
It is also interesting that the article did refer to the political landscape that the parts of North Wales that voted for the Labour Welsh Government at the Senedd election in 2021 are the most rebellious on this issue
Drakeford's 20mph = Starmer's Curry
And we all know how that one ended.
Have you read the article ?
So, in some places the number of petition signatories is nearly twenty percent of the electorate.
We either have a pre-revolutionary situation here...
... Or someone is fiddling the petition by putting in postcodes that aren't theirs.
Those signing the petition in an attempt to debase it are only adding to the numbers quoted by the media, politicians and in the Senedd
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I suspect I travel more miles per year than all them, and I have got used to it (we have had several pilots in South Wales). Don't forget this was a cross party consensus road safety issue until Uxbridge.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
I have consistently said I do not support the conservative position on this but the anomalies in its implementation in Wales, as explained in the article I posted, where Gwynedd has retained 85 x 30mph zones and Denbighshire just 5 requires a sensible review
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
I suspect the majority of petitioners remain of the opinion that 30 to 20 is a blanket change. As you have outlined it isn't! It has been the work of local authorities to manage this and some have done better than others.
The Conservatives (driven from Westminster) have been utterly abject in their inconsistency.
I am off to Newport now and I don't approve of the ridiculous 50mph zone from Tredegar House to the Coldra, it is stupid! But I am fully on board with "20 is plenty ". I wasn't, but I now see the method behind the madness.
Actually we are not far apart on this, but it is obvious LA'S will review their decisions as indeed is suggested by the Senedd and hopefully we can arrive at a sensible compromise
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Fairly sure you can add Wokingham (John Redwood) to that list.
The tragedy of Sunak’s courting of Mr Toad is that it demonstrates the utter inability of modern Conservatism to grapple with real world problems and show a degree of leadership and innovation in tackling them. It’s a pitch to the past.
This Mr Toad comment and the assortment of loons who've dropped a like is a very big indicator of how Labour could screw up this GE.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
Presumably they were investigating complaints, rather than "choosing" a particular lie. "Error" unduly dignifies the parties involved.
Obviously they respond to complaints. They don't choose what to investigate.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Some pretty naice places to live there.
It's a naice party for naice people.
Seriously I think Davey, when he gets a showing, comes across as a decent chap with a poignant backstory. The only way he can get media attention is jolly japes with bulldozers and cannons etc. Frustrating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CveAEcXUJqk
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Fairly sure you can add Wokingham (John Redwood) to that list.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Some pretty naice places to live there.
It's a naice party for naice people.
Seriously I think Davey, when he gets a showing, comes across as a decent chap with a poignant backstory. The only way he can get media attention is jolly japes with bulldozers and cannons etc. Frustrating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CveAEcXUJqk
If it wasnt for those pesky SNP finishing in third.....
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
I would add Inverness, Skye and West Ross-Shire. I wouldn’t be surprised if the SNP also lose Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, either to the Tories or the Lib Dems. The SNP will suffer because of ferries.
The tragedy of Sunak’s courting of Mr Toad is that it demonstrates the utter inability of modern Conservatism to grapple with real world problems and show a degree of leadership and innovation in tackling them. It’s a pitch to the past.
This Mr Toad comment and the assortment of loons who've dropped a like is a very big indicator of how Labour could screw up this GE.
It disturbs me just how many people didn't get the Wind In The Willows reference.
Can't believe there are still people who say that NATO provoked Putin.
This subtitled video, in which Russian TV explains to Russians what it’s all about, is quite instructive: it’s not about NATO, it’s not about foreign threats, it’s not about Russian-speakers. It’s just about Russia’s existential purpose to become the biggest empire on Earth. https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1707668985867796848?s=20
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
I think this is exactly the kind of error that needs correcting. First, it is demonstrably false. Second, it is likely to have stirred up racial hatred. Third, it was written by the Home Secretary, and so would carry more weight than something written by a random hack. If not for correcting this kind of malicious falsehood, what is the regulator for?
Since it was double checked with Braverman, can we call it what it clearly was: a deliberate lie ?
I wonder whether Braverman’s Indian background affects her views on Pakistanis.
The tragedy of Sunak’s courting of Mr Toad is that it demonstrates the utter inability of modern Conservatism to grapple with real world problems and show a degree of leadership and innovation in tackling them. It’s a pitch to the past.
This Mr Toad comment and the assortment of loons who've dropped a like is a very big indicator of how Labour could screw up this GE.
It disturbs me just how many people didn't get the Wind In The Willows reference.
I hope you're not including me in that - one of my fave books as a kid.
Drivers are more likely to support the Conservatives than non drivers so it should help the Tories and will be particularly popular with small businessmen
The tragedy of Sunak’s courting of Mr Toad is that it demonstrates the utter inability of modern Conservatism to grapple with real world problems and show a degree of leadership and innovation in tackling them. It’s a pitch to the past.
This Mr Toad comment and the assortment of loons who've dropped a like is a very big indicator of how Labour could screw up this GE.
It disturbs me just how many people didn't get the Wind In The Willows reference.
I note too that local journalists are much better at challenging our politicians than the supine national ones. Rishis round has been as bad as the infamous Truss local interviews.
Is he going to be the weakest PM ever?
Braverman says the complete opposite to him on if the UK has done well in integrating immigrants and he wont criticise her let alone sack her. Truss says we should do x,y and z and two days later he does x,y and z having been against them the week before. Everyone knows he has cancelled the Manchster leg of HS2 but he refuses to say so until after he has left Manchester.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
Well 2 pieces of bad news yesterday: son lost job after challenging health & safety conditions at work during recent high temperatures - people fainting etc (appealing but holds out little hope so looking for other jobs) and someone v dear to us has been diagnosed with very early chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. Bugger.
Dread what today will bring. Everything seemed to be going ok .... I should have realised it wouldn't last.
I wouldn't look on the losing of a job over H&S concerns as bad news - sounds like he is well out of a place that is dangerous. And run by idiots.
Commiserations on the later piece of news.
Is a claim for wrongful dismissal in order - or had he not been in the job long enough ? In any event, what utter ****s.
Not an option. Only there 18 months. He is worried about references, of course. He has really worked hard in the last 2 years to get himself in order after a troubled time with illness and was enjoying the job and good at it. But a new unpleasant manager and the leadership unwilling to spend the money to make the place safe. When ambulances are being called for employees who faint ....
My youngest caught the first bout of Covid when his then employers failed to give the employees the right type of masks and allowed someone they knew had Covid to come in and work without telling the others.
There is a lot of less than good treatment of younger workers. They have to put up with poor treatment and if they refuse get pushed out. Daughter sees it in her sector too. A lot of sweating the assets going on - only these are human beings not assets and would be a real genuine asset to the company if they were treated well.
Drivers are more likely to support the Conservatives than non drivers so it should help the Tories and will be particularly popular with small businessmen
Small businessmen? Surely Rishi's vote is already in the bank or are you thinking he may be a LD switcher?
Can't believe there are still people who say that NATO provoked Putin.
This subtitled video, in which Russian TV explains to Russians what it’s all about, is quite instructive: it’s not about NATO, it’s not about foreign threats, it’s not about Russian-speakers. It’s just about Russia’s existential purpose to become the biggest empire on Earth. https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1707668985867796848?s=20
There is also this weird genre of Russian popular literature and film with timetravellers going back to change historic Russian defeats and subsequent history.
I've said for ages the Brexit Tory Party is a socialist party delivering Michael Foot's manifesto and guess what, the voters see the Tories as more of a tax raising party than Labour.
This is interesting for @RestIsPolitics - voters think @UKLabour and @Conservatives will both increase taxes - but are far more likely to think Labour would spend more on public services
The Conservatives are indeed a very heavily tax-raising party.
By 2010 Brown had built a public sector which could only be funded by tens of billions of financial sector taxes. When that dried up a frankly terrifying structural deficit appeared and we have spent the last 13 years trying to close it. We were getting there until Covid and Ukraine blew us off course again but that is the context of all financial decisions since 2008.
Cuts have proven very unpopular so tax has to be raised from other sources. Anyone kidding themselves that these problems will magically disappear when SKS becomes PM is delusional.
The problems won't magically disappear but they can be ameliorated by making the tax base simpler, flatter and more consistent.
Taxing some people 75-80% and others 20% is inefficient and counterproductive.
The Conservatives used to believe in this, which is why they used to be worth voting for.
Those are marginal rates. They are bad, but I think you have to be clear that they’re marginal rates. No-one is taxed overall at 75-80% rate.
Marginal rates is what matters. When people decide whether to pick up another shift, or go for a promotion, or engage in tax avoidance, it's marginal rates they look at.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
Can nothing be done about feral youths? So far this week we have had a 17 and two 13 year olds charged with wilful fire raising at Ayr Station Hotel, a 16 year old arrested in connection with the cutting down of the Sycamore Gap tree and a 17 year old charged with the murder of a 15 year old.
Turned out I was right, but never in my wildest nightmares did I imagine the Republican candidate who benefited would turn out to be as mad as Trump is.
You thought the Democrats needed someone "fresh, daring and not well-known". Which epithet best fits Joe Biden iyo?
The tragedy of Sunak’s courting of Mr Toad is that it demonstrates the utter inability of modern Conservatism to grapple with real world problems and show a degree of leadership and innovation in tackling them. It’s a pitch to the past.
This Mr Toad comment and the assortment of loons who've dropped a like is a very big indicator of how Labour could screw up this GE.
It disturbs me just how many people didn't get the Wind In The Willows reference.
Worse than that
I have had A Level Physics classes who don't know what Vogons are. For years, "not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous" was my go-to reference for what examiners are like. Then students stopped getting the reference.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Melksham & Devizes?
Large Labour vote to squeeze. It is dependent on an efficient tactical voting campaign.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
Drivers are more likely to support the Conservatives than non drivers so it should help the Tories and will be particularly popular with small businessmen
Can we expect the next announcement to be exemption from ULEZ for white van men?
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
Can nothing be done about feral youths? So far this week we have had a 17 and two 13 year olds charged with wilful fire raising at Ayr Station Hotel, a 16 year old arrested in connection with the cutting down of the Sycamore Gap tree and a 17 year old charged with the murder of a 15 year old.
The Ayr Station Hotel incident is interesting, especially when viewed in conjunction with the Crooked House mess. The hotel caught fire earlier in spring, and then mysteriously caught fire again this week as well, completing the job.
First time the press regulator has forced a paper to correct an article written by a secretary of state. By Braverman inevitably.
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
I am absolutely no fan of Braverman. She is a blight on the face of the government and her thinking, such as it is, shows a cruel indifference about the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
I think this is exactly the kind of error that needs correcting. First, it is demonstrably false. Second, it is likely to have stirred up racial hatred. Third, it was written by the Home Secretary, and so would carry more weight than something written by a random hack. If not for correcting this kind of malicious falsehood, what is the regulator for?
Since it was double checked with Braverman, can we call it what it clearly was: a deliberate lie ?
I wonder whether Braverman’s Indian background affects her views on Pakistanis.
The story as it is written doesn't really make sense though. Braverman said that 'child grooming gangs' in the UK were nearly all comprised of British Pakistanis, but IPSO's correction criticises her for identifying them with 'a particular form of offending', meaning child grooming or perhaps child abuse as a general category (presumably not with a specific gang MO), where the majority ethnicity amongst offenders is white. These are two different things and it is specious to conflate the two.
There is a further problem with IPSO's ruling - it relies, presumably, on numbers of convictions for said offences. Grooming gangs became a scandal precisely because the police failed to investigate, and therefore the number of convictions was artificially low, to an extreme degree. There have been a lot more since the scandal broke, which is good, but I doubt that data on convictions represents a true picture of who was in a grooming gang and who wasn't.
For the record, I think that the HS is wrong in her blaming the grooming gangs on 'cultural attitudes', because I think the police failure to act guaranteeing impunity became a bigger factor than any cultural antecedents. I am also not sure if the grooming gangs were composed mainly of British Pakistanis, but what I am saying is that the ruling as it is written up above doesn’t refute the claim successfully.
Can nothing be done about feral youths? So far this week we have had a 17 and two 13 year olds charged with wilful fire raising at Ayr Station Hotel, a 16 year old arrested in connection with the cutting down of the Sycamore Gap tree and a 17 year old charged with the murder of a 15 year old.
Thanks to Covid, mental health issues for young people have gone through the roof.
It's a desperate attempt to appeal to emotions in certain people by a government that has run out of ideas and leadership.
Yes, but will it appeal to anyone beyond the terminally Tory ?
I can imagine it might appeal to some in the Red Wall, for whom public transport is next to non-existent and sees a load of city-dwellers who get busses every ten minutes past their door. And who park on the street, usually five doors down from their own house.
Do many Red Wallers really see Sunak as a fellow driver? He doesn't know how to buy petrol, and he's famous for his use of helicopters. Who's going to think "oh, he's just like me"?
Yesterday, he was asked how he'd be getting to Manchester for the Tory conference: "Well actually I'll probably be driving because train strikes are in place which is very disappointing actually".
"probably be driving"? Lies!
No-one will believe that. He'll be being driven. And that's fine - he's Prime Minister, and it's what people will expect. But there's a big difference between the two, people know that, and they'll laugh in his face if he tries to adopt a man-of-the-people routine now.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
That does seem especially disastrous for the Conservatives, right now. A party can survive that level of defeat.
196 seats is little different to what Howard got in 2005 and 5 years later the Conservatives were in government
The problem the Tory party has is the current Tory membership. UKIP lite and upset with Sunak.
They're like the Corbynites were in the Labour party. The Tories are destined to remain in opposition until enough proper Tories actually join or rejoin the party and restore decency and common sense.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Caithness? I don't reckon so. Mid Dunbartonshire could be close.
Caithness is an existing LibDem seat but becomes notionally SNP after boundary changes. Libs should win it though given decline of SNP. Mid Dunbarts is Jo Swinson's old seat but it has been dismembered. Outside chance of a LibDem win in one of the successor seats.
Can nothing be done about feral youths? So far this week we have had a 17 and two 13 year olds charged with wilful fire raising at Ayr Station Hotel, a 16 year old arrested in connection with the cutting down of the Sycamore Gap tree and a 17 year old charged with the murder of a 15 year old.
The Ayr Station Hotel incident is interesting, especially when viewed in conjunction with the Crooked House mess. The hotel caught fire earlier in spring, and then mysteriously caught fire again this week as well, completing the job.
The main difference is that, apart from the owners, nobody wanted The Crooked House demolished, whereas, the inhabitants of Ayr, South Ayrshire Council and Scotrail would be happy if Ayr Station Hotel was demolished.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Melksham & Devizes?
Large Labour vote to squeeze. It is dependent on an efficient tactical voting campaign.
I'm sure the Lib Dems can devise a suitable barchart.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Cheadle and Hazel Grove are both more likely than some of those.
Apart from Lab on 39%, does anyone have the shares for the other parties from the Times MRP?
Con 26.3%
Lib Dems 10.8%
Taking Labour at 39% gives a 3 party tally of 76.1.
That's back to 2015 levels of Lib Lab Con. But where are the other votes going - Reform or whatever it's called now are nowhere near UKIP levels of 2015; the greens don't seem to be particularly surging and the SNP are going to be back closer to 3.x% rather than the 4.7% they got in 2015.
If you replace Corbyn with a centre left leader you end up disappointed with only a 14 point lead?
Centre left leader replaced with Red Tory leader who boasts we are the Conservatives now and GE 2024 will not result in aforesaid Tory beating other Tory by 14% either imo
Not sure of the etiquette of this, but you don’t ask you don’t get, so…
Tomorrow I’m doing the Yorkshire Three Peaks Challenge. 24 miles and 5200ft worth of climbing over Yorkshire’s three highest peaks in under 12 hours. I, and around 20 other willing victims, are doing it memory of a friend of mine’s son, Isaac, who died in April at four months old after enduring four open heart surgeries.
We’re raising money for a charity called the Children’s Heart Surgery Fund, which supports the Leeds Congenital Heart Unit at Leeds General Infirmary.
I might be cheeky and drop this link in again later and tomorrow, so please bear with me. If you’re lucky and the phone signal holds up I might even post some pictures of trig points and heavy autumnal rainfall on bleak Yorkshire fells.
If Rishi had not cancelled Northern Powerhouse Rail, you'd be able to get the train.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
I think 196 seats for the Tories would be a good result for them.
It is a really good poll for the Tories as Jacob Rees-Mogg loses his seat.
36 feels low for us. I can see a succession of blue wall seats falling like dominos on the night. Davey plans a "laser-like" targeting of seats and after the absurd chaos of the 2019 election I think he is right to do so.
But in a change election the tidal surge sweeps way past the targets...
36 would be very good for the Lib Dems. John Curtice thinks 30 is the maximum.
I'm predicting 40 with the following gains
Cheadle and Hazel Grove are both more likely than some of those.
Agree on both. Key is Labour squeeze, or rather, preventing Labour resurgence splitting the anti Tory vote. This is prediction for Cheadle
I'm coming to the conclusion that my guess of 40 Lib Dem seats is on the low side.
Six cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats at the next general election as support for the Conservatives in the suburbs of southern England crumbles, polling for The Times and Times Radio shows.
Seat-by-seat analysis of voting intention by the Stonehaven research and strategy consultancy suggested that the Labour Party would win a comfortable majority of 90 seats and 39 per cent of the votes if the next general election were held tomorrow. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was among the ministers who would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats.
The MRP poll used demographic and other data to build a constituency-by-constituency projection showed that support for the Conservatives would collapse to 26.3 per cent of the vote, from 43.6 per cent won by Boris Johnson in 2019.
Rishi Sunak’s projected 196-seat tally would be the worst recorded by any Conservative leader since William Hague’s 166 in 2001. Labour’s 372 seats would give Sir Keir Starmer a comfortable working majority of 90, the party’s biggest since 2001.
Highlighting the Tories’ vulnerabilities in their traditional southern heartlands, the Liberal Democrats would be returned with 36 seats and 10.8 per cent of the vote, a marked improvement on the 15 seats they hold at present.
Comments
It is perfectly possible that in parts of North Wales, especially around the border, nearly 20% have signed the petition
I haven't placed much yet in the way of bets on the next GE.
The Tory vote would go up if they just shut up for a week even a month.
Cuts have proven very unpopular so tax has to be raised from other sources. Anyone kidding themselves that these problems will magically disappear when SKS becomes PM is delusional.
How do you think this will play with the fickle media when the first child is killed after a reversion to 30?
Suella Braverman falsely claimed child grooming gangs in the UK were “almost all British-Pakistani”, according to a ruling by the press regulator, Ipso.
The home secretary made the claim in a Mail on Sunday article published in April, where she singled out British-Pakistani men as being involved in child sexual abuse due to “cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values” that “have been left mostly unchallenged both within their communities and by wider society”.
Ipso has forced the Mail on Sunday to issue an apology and correction to Braverman’s piece after concluding the statement was false. The regulator said Braverman’s decision to link “the identified ethnic group and a particular form of offending was significantly misleading” because the Home Office’s own research had concluded offenders were mainly from white backgrounds.
In its defence, the Mail on Sunday argued that prior to publication it had double-checked Braverman’s decision to single out British-Pakistanis with advisers to the home secretary and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Both teams at the top level of government confirmed they had “no concern over this particular line” and were happy for it to be published.
The newspaper also unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to rely on factual information provided by the home secretary about the ethnicities of grooming gangs because the Home Office was the department responsible for dealing with the issue – and Braverman was the most senior member of that department.
The regulator concluded that, regardless of the discussions that had gone on behind the scenes, the Mail on Sunday had published an inaccurate statement as fact. This has led to the highly unusual situation of a newspaper printing a factual correction to a comment article authored by a leading cabinet minister.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1707495867861618941
But naive of the Mail on Sunday to think that checking with the Home Office and Downing Street is a suitably rigourous fact check, though.
Nobody wants any child or indeed anyone killed in a road accident and that must be an important consideration and of course why most everyone supports the 20mph zones around schools
Mind you, Rishi and the Conservatives could always screw things up further, and Reform could go all-in to cut them up.
It's probably stand in the bucket and try and pull yourself up stuff.
But British newspapers print thousands of lies and distortions every day. You could demand every other edition of the Express was a correction of the previous effort. I am really not sure that this officious regulator should have chosen this particular error.
Commiserations on the later piece of news.
Early on in Thatcher's period in government, Conservatives talked about decentralisation of government. Ever since, they have been centralisers every bit as much as Labour, if not more so.
Indeed, the Lib Dems had slightly more councillors than the Tories across the country at the time of the 1997 General Election (I think they lost that lead on the day of the 1997 General Election - there were actually quite a few Tory gains that day on higher GE turnout and against a dire set of post-Black Friday locals in 1993).
There has been a strong Lib Dem recovery in local government in recent years such that you could, if you were desperately sad and had way too much time on your hands, walk from Tunbridge Wells to the River Tamar never leaving a Lib Dem-controlled council. But the gap is still quite large - just under 3,000 compared with just over 5,700 blues. That will probably close somewhat next year and in 2025 as the 2021 elections (encompassing delayed 2020 elections) were very good for the Tories and only middling for the Lib Dems. But it's still an important contrast from 1997.
The Lib Dems would be wise not to over-target at the General Election as they have in several successive elections. 25-30 MPs would feel a bit deflating to the more pumped up Lib Dems, but would actually be a decent result in terms of being back on the map.
They will be watching the SNP/Labour fight in Scotland as more than interested observers. It's vital for Labour in terms of securing a majority, but very important for the Lib Dems too as a return to being third party in the Commons is important in terms of media coverage - the Lib Dems have some control over how they perform themselves, but much of it is out of their control in central belt Scottish seats where, with a tiny handful of exceptions, they are irrelevant.
The Conservatives (driven from Westminster) have been utterly abject in their inconsistency.
I am off to Newport now and I don't approve of the ridiculous 50mph zone from Tredegar House to the Coldra, it is stupid! But I am fully on board with "20 is plenty ". I wasn't, but I now see the method behind the madness.
In any event, what utter ****s.
Taxing some people 75-80% and others 20% is inefficient and counterproductive.
The Conservatives used to believe in this, which is why they used to be worth voting for.
As it stands we're in a high interest rate, low growth environment for the next year at least because domestically generated inflation was allowed to run wild by keeping rates too low for too long in order to "protect the economy" or whatever wording the BoE used, when in fact the economy was likely closer to overheating in 2021 and 2022.
Since the Republicans in Congress are unable to command a majority to vote for their risible "impeachment enquiry", do subpoenas issued on its behalf have any legal standing ?
This was precisely why the the Democratic Congress ended up holding such a vote on Trump's impeachment.
01.19.20
OLC issued an opinion stating an "impeachment inquiry" is INVALID unless a formal vote has been held to authorize it. McCarthy hasn't held a vote. Does he have the votes he needs to authorize the inquiry? Can he compel production of docs? Are subpoenas valid?
https://twitter.com/KathyGirouard/status/1707641725869781121
There was a Tory councillor from Cornwall on Today earlier debating the issue with some other Tory from elsewhere. Cornwall is a notable area of Tory electoral success in recent years, so they clearly know their residents pretty well and he was all in favour of 20mph. Fair enough, and maybe those in another part of the country have different residents and a different view.
This is what slightly annoys me about Downing Street wading in. Sunak is meant to be the PM of a pretty important world power - a Security Council and G8 member. I don't really get what he's meant to be doing d1cking about with a "review" of whether people in Polperro should be allowed to drive down the high street fractionally faster or slower - let Cllr Bob Nobody worry about it and see if he gets re-elected or not.
I get that it's part of a low level electoral calculation to be all string-backed driving gloves and hang a pine air-freshener on the rear view mirror, but I can't help but think it just makes Sunak look small and trivial. When Brown was trying to hold it togather at the fag end of New Labour, at least he personally looked like a substantial figure, doing Big Things on Important Stuff with Obama, Sarkozy and Merkel. It probably saved Labour a fair few seats in 2010 - he still clearly lost, but it wasn't a meltdown.
Sunak is in danger of getting into a John Major area of appearing to be way out of his depth and out of ideas, and retreating into stuff that is beneath his pay grade. The Cones Hotline wasn't an awful idea (it didn't work but wasn't some kind of horrific blunder or actively nasty policy) - the absurdity was the idea that it was a signature policy from the PM of the United Kingdom.
The complete lack of media discipline is quite striking, and I do wonder who is writing policy.
BBC News - Rishi Sunak refuses to say if he backs Suella Braverman multiculturalism remarks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66948132
I note too that local journalists are much better at challenging our politicians than the supine national ones. Rishis round has been as bad as the infamous Truss local interviews.
Seriously I think Davey, when he gets a showing, comes across as a decent chap with a poignant backstory. The only way he can get media attention is jolly japes with bulldozers and cannons etc. Frustrating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CveAEcXUJqk
This subtitled video, in which Russian TV explains to Russians what it’s all about, is quite instructive: it’s not about NATO, it’s not about foreign threats, it’s not about Russian-speakers. It’s just about Russia’s existential purpose to become the biggest empire on Earth.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1707668985867796848?s=20
Lib Dems 10.8%
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/sep/29/im-90-i-worry-if-im-gonna-make-it-to-lunch-michael-caine-and-john-standing-on-wives-war-and-feeling-like-the-queen
...“Michael, darling,” says Standing, “I said to someone the other day: ‘Have you heard of Peter O’Toole?’ She said: ‘Well, I know the name.’ Once you are dead, you are dead. You think of Bogart! But young people only know Goose. What’s he called? Gosling. Big names in the theatre – Gielgud – mean nothing.”..
Braverman says the complete opposite to him on if the UK has done well in integrating immigrants and he wont criticise her let alone sack her.
Truss says we should do x,y and z and two days later he does x,y and z having been against them the week before.
Everyone knows he has cancelled the Manchster leg of HS2 but he refuses to say so until after he has left Manchester.
My youngest caught the first bout of Covid when his then employers failed to give the employees the right type of masks and allowed someone they knew had Covid to come in and work without telling the others.
There is a lot of less than good treatment of younger workers. They have to put up with poor treatment and if they refuse get pushed out. Daughter sees it in her sector too. A lot of sweating the assets going on - only these are human beings not assets and would be a real genuine asset to the company if they were treated well.
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1707407873603428717?t=3Rsh3dQrEK1p5NLgYGhpGQ&s=19
Marginal rates should never be so obscenely high.
Savanta UK
🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention
📈14pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 44 (-2)
🌳Con 30 (+4)
🔶LD 11 (-1)
➡️Reform 5 (=)
🌍Green 4 (=)
🎗️SNP 2 (-1)
⬜️Other 4 (-1)
2,093 UK adults, 22-24
(chg 15-17 Sept)
I have had A Level Physics classes who don't know what Vogons are. For years, "not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous" was my go-to reference for what examiners are like. Then students stopped getting the reference.
Truly we are in the end times.
There is a further problem with IPSO's ruling - it relies, presumably, on numbers of convictions for said offences. Grooming gangs became a scandal precisely because the police failed to investigate, and therefore the number of convictions was artificially low, to an extreme degree. There have been a lot more since the scandal broke, which is good, but I doubt that data on convictions represents a true picture of who was in a grooming gang and who wasn't.
For the record, I think that the HS is wrong in her blaming the grooming gangs on 'cultural attitudes', because I think the police failure to act guaranteeing impunity became a bigger factor than any cultural antecedents. I am also not sure if the grooming gangs were composed mainly of British Pakistanis, but what I am saying is that the ruling as it is written up above doesn’t refute the claim successfully.
LAB: 44% (-2)
CON: 30% (+4)
LDEM: 11% (-1)
REF: 5% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
via @Savanta_UK, 22 - 24 Sep
SKS fans please explain
Yesterday, he was asked how he'd be getting to Manchester for the Tory conference: "Well actually I'll probably be driving because train strikes are in place which is very disappointing actually".
"probably be driving"? Lies!
No-one will believe that. He'll be being driven. And that's fine - he's Prime Minister, and it's what people will expect. But there's a big difference between the two, people know that, and they'll laugh in his face if he tries to adopt a man-of-the-people routine now.
They're like the Corbynites were in the Labour party. The Tories are destined to remain in opposition until enough proper Tories actually join or rejoin the party and restore decency and common sense.
Not a lot according to this one
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 45% (-)
CON: 27% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 6% (-1)
REF: 6% (+1)
via
@techneUK
, 27 - 28 Sep
That's back to 2015 levels of Lib Lab Con. But where are the other votes going - Reform or whatever it's called now are nowhere near UKIP levels of 2015; the greens don't seem to be particularly surging and the SNP are going to be back closer to 3.x% rather than the 4.7% they got in 2015.
All figures are UK
MRP (Lab @ 39%, Con @ 26.3, LD @ 10.8) 76.1%
2019 87.3 (89.5% GB Only) SNP @ 4.0%, Plaid @ 0.5%, Green @ 2.8%, Brexit & UKIP @ 2.2%
2017 89.7
2015 75.1 (77.1% GB only) UKIP @ 12.9%, SNP @ 4.7%, Green @ 3.8%
2010 88.1
2005 89.8
2001 90.7
1997 90.7
1992 94.1
1987 95.6
1983 (Alliance instead of LD) 95.4
1979 94.6 (Liberal)
1974 93.3 (Liberal)
There's a tonne of extra votes which have to go somewhere here, and history suggests they'll go to one of the big three.
This is prediction for Cheadle
I'm coming to the conclusion that my guess of 40 Lib Dem seats is on the low side.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?