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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
Whats not been factored in is the Lib Dems chances depend to much degree on what’s in Labours manifesto .
If there’s anything in there that frightens those likely to be more switchable in terms of Tory to Lib Dem in those southern seats .
Vote Lib Dem get Labour and that horrible policy .
I think both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos will be anodyne.
They'll continue to sit back and let the Tories self destruct.
But the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. They want meaningful change - not just a new occupant in Downing Street. Yes, they'd take that - but don't expect them to stay happy for long when nothing much changes.
The economy is not in a position to make much change. Starmer will find out what Truss found out - Mr Market won't let you make meaningful changes. Especially if he has a tiny majority - or more likely, no majority at all.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
"We northerners drive"
It's actually softy southerners. Real northerners button up their Barbour and stride across the moor. You'd be better off in leafy Buckinghamshire.
Did you fail mathematics at school?
You keep presenting statistics that show a majority drive, with odd glee at that as if it proves your point.
That's a majority with a car in the entire North West.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
"We northerners drive"
It's actually softy southerners. Real northerners button up their Barbour and stride across the moor. You'd be better off in leafy Buckinghamshire.
Did you fail mathematics at school?
You keep presenting statistics that show a majority drive, with odd glee at that as if it proves your point.
That's a majority with a car in the entire North West.
I went to school in Scotland, so my education is approx 10x better than yours.
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.
Understood, but are you ignoring the fact that the Lib Dems are also polling lower than their 2019 result? Last ten polls average put them on 7.2% compared with 9.5%. That's a quarter of their vote gone if reflected in an actual GE. Compare with SNP average of 35.9 (same ten polls) compared to 45% in the GE. That's 21% of their vote gone.
Be careful not to focus only on the SNP's troubles, it might lead you into making bad predictions.
In fact, I'll double down. LibDems will win Caithness at a canter especially if Jamie Stone stands again. SNP will do especially badly in the North due to Yousaf and his Green allies, and Unionist voters will find it easy to coalesce around the LibDems in a seat like Caithness. Your extrapolations are irrelevant to Scotland especially to areas like the Highlands.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Given every public transport and active travel investment is explicitly designed to give drivers more choice and freedom, 100% of ground transport investment in the UK is pro-motorist.
That's a lie. Failing to invest in roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Failing to keep up road growth with population growth is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Cannibalising existing roads taking away lanes to go to alternatives, without bothering to invest in new lanes and new roads is not pro-motorist, or pro-growth.
Your anti-investment hysteria is why we have low productivity in this country, because we've neglected our critical transport infrastructure for half a century while our population has massively expanded beyond investment.
Anti-investment?
I want to purge all the NIMBY's opposing cycle lanes and put HS13 through to Inverness.
And which new roads are you proposing? 🤔
"We northerners drive"
It's actually softy southerners. Real northerners button up their Barbour and stride across the moor. You'd be better off in leafy Buckinghamshire.
Did you fail mathematics at school?
You keep presenting statistics that show a majority drive, with odd glee at that as if it proves your point.
That's a majority with a car in the entire North West.
I went to school in Scotland, so my education is approx 10x better than yours.
Your Scottish education leading you to think two thirds is smaller than one third explains a lot about why some Scots think five years is a generation.
After putting the link up this morning for the walk I’m doing tomorrow, the donations have leapt up. To all of you who have donated, thank you so much. Some of you have identified yourselves as PBers and have been really generous - our WhatsApp group has lit up up with people asking what PB is, so I have had to explain and out myself as a political nerd who spends far too much time on here!
Isaac’s parents, Leanne and Ryan, have asked me to pass on their sincere thanks and gratitude for your donations. We’ve passed 50% of our total this morning, and everyone on the WhatsApp group is made up.
Sincerely, thank you so, so much from all of us ❤️
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
I recall going to a Liberal conference, and a middle-aged lady from North Devon wanting to know why “We can’t have Jeremy (Thorpe) back! Late 80’s IIRC.
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
The national polls of the Lib Dems are grossly misleading. Not wrong but misleading.
The Lib Dem share is very lumpy by geography. Very low in most places but very high were Lib Dems are active and in local power.
If the Lib Dems were on 25% in every constituency they'd probably get zero seats with 25% national share.
If they were on 50% share in 50 seats and zero elsewhere, their national share would be 50x50/650 i.e. 4% but they would get 50 seats. Look at the SNP.
I know all this. But the LibDems have a very poor leader and people who want change see Starmer's Labour as the vehicle for that change. Gawd help us.
I'd suggest the LibDems best chance of more seats is if Labour drop to a point where they will not get a majority. People might then be more inclined to give the LibDems more seats - if they have some policies to promote by then.
For trains the question is how many hundreds of billions should be spent on new tracks to build capacity.
For motorists the idea of being pro is apparently to merely not be actively hostile, and to fix potholes?
That's just neutral, that's not pro. Want to be pro motorist, then let's talk about some long overdue investment in new roads etc rather than simply fixing potholes in roads in our network that last had significant upgrades fifty years ago when our population was considerably lower?
You make an interesting point. The difference, I think, is that not everyone has access to a car, so these policies are a "wedge". They benefit only one group.
On the other hand, investment in public transport is seen as something everyone, including those with access to a car.
Which is self-serving bullshit, since 'public transport' is used by a tiny minority and only where roads aren't good, whereas roads are used by the overwhelming majority.
And those who use public transport still rely on others using roads, eg vans, buses, delivery drivers etc.
Stop looking for excuses for a failing government and just get going with investing in our critical infrastructure.
Only 66% of commuters drive to work. "Tiny" minority don't, apparently.
And that's with the shocking level of public transport provision in the north.
'Only' two in three. 😂😂😂😂
Last I checked two thirds is a pretty significant majority. And you want to deny investment to the two thirds of the population? Fanatic.
Of the other third, almost all stats normally show the primary alternative mode of commuting is walking. Yes, public transportation is tiny versus the overwhelming majority of 66%.
The stats are not your friend.
Im sure the "Tiny Bully" is being bred as we speak.
You also claimed that "we northerners drive" like you are born wearing driving gloves and a flat cap.
We do drive. That is the primary mode of transportation in the North, as it is in almost the entire country. As it is for two thirds of commuters and 95% of land-based freight mileage from memory.
I've never worn 'driving gloves' or a flat cap.
Just because you're an anti-car fanatic that wants to deny investment to two thirds of commuters, doesn't make what I say ridiculous.
The reason transport is such a silly topic for culture war is that very few people only use one mode. The idea the country is in some kind of incipient civil war between cavalier motorists and roundhead lycra-clad cyclists is nonsense. I live in London and would say I am pretty typical in that in an average week I use trains and light rail, the bus, both an ICE and EV car, and walk. I don't cycle as much as many but I have a bike too.
My family live in a more rural part of the midlands. They cycle, drive and take trains and buses too.
But - until you've slashed the tires of some motorists on a weekday, and murdered some cyclists with a giant SUV, while rolling coal & knocking over ULEZ cameras, on the weekend - how can you have an opinion on transport?
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
Whats not been factored in is the Lib Dems chances depend to much degree on what’s in Labours manifesto .
If there’s anything in there that frightens those likely to be more switchable in terms of Tory to Lib Dem in those southern seats .
Vote Lib Dem get Labour and that horrible policy .
I think both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos will be anodyne.
They'll continue to sit back and let the Tories self destruct.
But the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. They want meaningful change - not just a new occupant in Downing Street. Yes, they'd take that - but don't expect them to stay happy for long when nothing much changes.
The economy is not in a position to make much change. Starmer will find out what Truss found out - Mr Market won't let you make meaningful changes. Especially is he has a tiny majority - or more likely, no majority at all.
Yes the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. But that's what they'll get until after Labour are in government. It won't motivate them to vote Tory.
Once Labour are in Government I think (hope) there will be meaningful change but not in the Truss way.
Many sensible changes don't cost much.
A small example - Instructing DVLA to only issue driving tests to named drivers and not to spivs who buy up all the slots.
Another - allowing refugee applicants to work while their application is sorted out.
Applying NI to pensioners. Removing the cliff edges with massive marginal rates in the tax system. Etc Etc Etc
On topic - back in the late 90s and noughties the bête noire of the motorist was the speed camera. The Tories at the time took it upon themselves to rather loudly campaign against them in many instances. Didn’t help them a bit nationally. Locally I think it did resonate somewhat.
I foresee a similar point here. Pro-motorist policies are popular and do resonate with many people. However, it just isn’t what most people are thinking about when they choose their national government. So I think the impact of this will be limited. It might help shore up a small proportion of the core vote.
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers...
Isn't that who Rishi is talking to ?
Exactly. The ones who were doing it in the 1960s and 1970s. And the prematurely senile ones who have signed up to that vision.
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers. In the third decade of the 21st century, the vast majority of people are car drivers and also live in neighbourhoods that they want to be as safe and as unpolluted as possible. Some even use public transport, if it is still available after 13 years of cuts.
"Motorist" sounds a lot more human than the robotic term "car user".
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
Agreed. But I need to know about those prior crimes. If they were all petty offences - that’s wrong
But if they was violence involved in them, my sympathy drains away. Sixteen convictions
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
That's been a possibility since day one.
But on a week where Russia has made absolutely no forward progress, while Ukraine has liberated more strategic land around Verbove and made impressive strikes against Crimea and Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the only people who'd be bringing that up this week should be scheduled to arrive tomorrow morning.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
Whats not been factored in is the Lib Dems chances depend to much degree on what’s in Labours manifesto .
If there’s anything in there that frightens those likely to be more switchable in terms of Tory to Lib Dem in those southern seats .
Vote Lib Dem get Labour and that horrible policy .
I think both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos will be anodyne.
They'll continue to sit back and let the Tories self destruct.
But the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. They want meaningful change - not just a new occupant in Downing Street. Yes, they'd take that - but don't expect them to stay happy for long when nothing much changes.
The economy is not in a position to make much change. Starmer will find out what Truss found out - Mr Market won't let you make meaningful changes. Especially is he has a tiny majority - or more likely, no majority at all.
Yes the people who hate the Tories don't want anodyne. But that's what they'll get until after Labour are in government. It won't motivate them to vote Tory.
Once Labour are in Government I think (hope) there will be meaningful change but not in the Truss way.
Many sensible changes don't cost much.
A small example - Instructing DVLA to only issue driving tests to named drivers and not to spivs who buy up all the slots.
Another - allowing refugee applicants to work while their application is sorted out.
Applying NI to pensioners. Removing the cliff edges with massive marginal rates in the tax system. Etc Etc Etc
To pensioners? Or to pensions?
NI should apply to all income which Income Tax applies to. Whether that be income from salaried employment, self-employment, pensions, investments, letting out homes or anything else.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
They've destroyed the Russian Black Sea Fleet, they're destroying Russian artillery at a rate of knots, and closing in on Tokmak. That does not look like defeat.
After putting the link up this morning for the walk I’m doing tomorrow, the donations have leapt up. To all of you who have donated, thank you so much. Some of you have identified yourselves as PBers and have been really generous - our WhatsApp group has lit up up with people asking what PB is, so I have had to explain and out myself as a political nerd who spends far too much time on here!
Isaac’s parents, Leanne and Ryan, have asked me to pass on their sincere thanks and gratitude for your donations. We’ve passed 50% of our total this morning, and everyone on the WhatsApp group is made up.
Sincerely, thank you so, so much from all of us ❤️
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
FWIW I had drinks with a photojournalist friend the other night. He’s just back from 3 weeks in Ukraine. His sense is that “Ukraine is certainly not winning” and “is perhaps slowly losing”. Like me, he was struck by the large number of wounded men visible on Ukrainian streets
That is the problem. They’ve got tons of weapons. But they are running out of men to use them. Russia is not
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Are you wibbling again?
Of course there is a possibility that Ukraine loses, although you have to wonder what that defeat looks like. An acceptance that they cannot evict the Orcs from all terrain that Ukraine considers Ukranian? Accepting that peace talks is the only way out and that may involve giving up territory? Total defeat with 10% population taken out and shot in a ravine?
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
After putting the link up this morning for the walk I’m doing tomorrow, the donations have leapt up. To all of you who have donated, thank you so much. Some of you have identified yourselves as PBers and have been really generous - our WhatsApp group has lit up up with people asking what PB is, so I have had to explain and out myself as a political nerd who spends far too much time on here!
Isaac’s parents, Leanne and Ryan, have asked me to pass on their sincere thanks and gratitude for your donations. We’ve passed 50% of our total this morning, and everyone on the WhatsApp group is made up.
Sincerely, thank you so, so much from all of us ❤️
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
It sounds like the British equivalent of Clinton's infamous "three strikes" law. Either way you end up with petty criminals serving, in effect, life sentences. Sure, the guy was a major PITA for the law-abiding community but I'm not sure I want to live in a world without the possibility of reform and redemption.
And you know who introduced it? David Blunkett.
You've not pressed the "previous quotes" button then? The headline reproduced there was:-
FWIW I had drinks with a photojournalist friend the other night. He’s just back from 3 weeks in Ukraine. His sense is that “Ukraine is certainly not winning” and “is perhaps slowly losing”. Like me, he was struck by the large number of wounded men visible on Ukrainian streets
That is the problem. They’ve got tons of weapons. But they are running out of men to use them. Russia is not
Is he suffering from not enough data though? Has he also spent 3 weeks in Russia seeing the large number of wounded Russian men?
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
8am seems like a route to school.
And in the Wirral the M53 absolutely is a sound way to get about. Wouldn't surprise me that buses might go on the M53 at one junction and get off it again at the next, its a perfectly sound way to use motorways and why we should have more of them.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
That's been a possibility since day one.
But on a week where Russia has made absolutely no forward progress, while Ukraine has liberated more strategic land around Verbove and made impressive strikes against Crimea and Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the only people who'd be bringing that up this week should be scheduled to arrive tomorrow morning.
It reminds me of the celebrated exchange between Ribbentrop and Molotov when the former was trying to persuade the the Soviet Union to attack India. Ribbentrop kept telling him Britain was finished, while they took refuge in an air raid shelter, as the RAF attacked Berlin.
"If so, what are we doing in this shelter?"
The winning side does not see its fleet headquarters being hit with impunity
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
8am seems like a route to school.
And in the Wirral the M53 absolutely is a sound way to get about. Wouldn't surprise me that buses might go on the M53 at one junction and get off it again at the next, its a perfectly sound way to use motorways and why we should have more of them.
Hope everyone is OK.
More likely to be a normal school route in the NW that utilises a motorway compared to anywhere else tbh. Hopefully all the kids, driver & teachers are OK.
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
Marr in the video mentions small boats being another factor, with a likely courts victory and then winter weather reducing Channel crossings. But yes, fwiw I'd not be surprised by January 2025.
Not sure why there’s these rumours of a spring election.
Do the Tories expect a big recovery or things to get much worse economically later next year ?
Hanging on as late as possible seems more likely in the hope of something popping up .
I suspect if its anything planned its chatter to keep Labour guessing. Or its just the usual small talk - "You know, Sunak may just go for it in May..."
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
Brown was ahead of Cameron by even more than Blair was ahead of Howard when Brown became PM.
It was Osborne's IHT cut offer and the 2008 crash that really boosted the Tories in 2010, Cameron added a few points but not much more than that and of course in 2010 he still failed to get a majority
No, it really wasn't.
For someone who talks about polls a lot, you really don't understand them.
Brown had a bounce, which unwound.
It was never just the IHT cut offer. That was only one of many things happening at the time.
If the IHT cut offer had an efffect it was psyching Gordon Brown out of calling a snap election which he would have won.
The thing is, even if we accept that the IHT cut offer had a large impact in 2007 -
On the upside David "Bring Me May Machine Gun" Blunkett didn't get around to imposing the community restorative justice projects that were planned at one time. Including in Northern Ireland. Yes, kangaroo courts under the colour of the law....
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
What I meant was - almost certainly a coach, as defined by the rules governing safety equipment.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
The small boats case could still end up in the ECHR .
The loser would likely appeal there so it could rumble on further. It’s pretty clear the threats by no 10 re the ECHR are aimed not just there but at the 5 judges hearing the case at the SC .
The current thinking is that the government should win , we don’t know yet though which judges are hearing the case and that could be a factor .
To answer the thread, I think by and large it's a vote winner, but it's also true that it feels gimmicky and inauthentic, and to me, too narrowly focused. Conservatives should be looking at raising the standard of living in broader terms. That might include pro-motorist policies, but should also be pro-housing, pro-transport infrastructure (and other infrastructure) etc.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I thought your view was that we were all headed for nuclear annihilation?
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
Brown was ahead of Cameron by even more than Blair was ahead of Howard when Brown became PM.
It was Osborne's IHT cut offer and the 2008 crash that really boosted the Tories in 2010, Cameron added a few points but not much more than that and of course in 2010 he still failed to get a majority
No, it really wasn't.
For someone who talks about polls a lot, you really don't understand them.
Brown had a bounce, which unwound.
It was never just the IHT cut offer. That was only one of many things happening at the time.
If the IHT cut offer had an efffect it was psyching Gordon Brown out of calling a snap election which he would have won.
The thing is, even if we accept that the IHT cut offer had a large impact in 2007 -
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I thought your view was that we were all headed for nuclear annihilation?
I thought it was that the Trans Woke Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs would take over?
➡️ Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower. “They need capable fighters more urgent than they need western arms. They are losing their best. NATO training so far is not sufficient enough.”
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.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
Motorist is such a 20th century term. It always makes me think of blokes who wear chamois leather gloves when they get behind the wheel of their Rovers...
Isn't that who Rishi is talking to ?
Exactly. The ones who were doing it in the 1960s and 1970s. And the prematurely senile ones who have signed up to that vision.
And we all know why they wear backless gloves.
To show off their sexy liver spots?
Nope, their hairy palms. Or so I was told by my friend in the 1970s.
Edit: it was a meme then, possibly avant la lettre Dawkinsienne.
First, the change in total tax receipts per parliament since 1900, coloured according the party in charge:
Second, a comparison with other countries, showing the extent to which we're an outlier:
Why has this happened? What are we getting for the extra money?
Morning all.
The focus on "change in tax revenue" is open to being misleading imo.
When I last checked we were still some way below the EU and OECD averages in tax take, despite the rather misleading but-but-buttery about how it was the "highest for 40 / 50 years".
I'd suggest that more appropriate comparisons are with international peers.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
But you can put a ship on a barge. And even boats as large as nuclear missile submarines in the USN and RN.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
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.
Sunak won’t say what’s happening with HS2. He won’t say if he backs Braverman’s comments. He’s got to take a view on something at some point!
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
When I think of Cameron and Osborne, all I can think of is their stupid decision to call an EU referendum.
To be fair I think Osborne said it was a stupid idea and Cameron went ahead anyway
Was it a stupid idea? The counterfactual of NOT having a referendum sees leavers still endlessly banging on about how great it would be to leave. We would be another 7 years further on where the British public had not been consulted on Europe (unlike ALL the other EU members who ask their population to ratify new arrangements, sometimes several times until the give the 'correct' answer).
In the real world leaving has shown just how important the single market was/is. (And we will gradually get back to that). We are also re-aligning in Science and other areas.
So by having the referendum as lot of good things have happened (albeit with some bad stuff, although its hard to disentangle the Brexit bad from the Covid bad and the European war bad).
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
When I think of Cameron and Osborne, all I can think of is their stupid decision to call an EU referendum.
To be fair I think Osborne said it was a stupid idea and Cameron went ahead anyway
I think Cameron thought it would be a rinse-repeat of the Scottish referendum. He got too confident after that, that people would look like they were teetering on the edge of something seismic, but would ultimately vote for the status quo.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
What I meant was - almost certainly a coach, as defined by the rules governing safety equipment.
The key difference here is likely to be seat belts. There would be, I hope, some insistence on their usage at the start of the year which if this is a private coach coming from a distance and with a signed contract of carriage, as opposed to a local authority school bus, could be a reasonable hope.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
And "school bus" has different meaning in Americanese, of course. We could do with some of that over here in the UK, as discussed on PB before. But the backless glove tendency prevails in the UK.
First, the change in total tax receipts per parliament since 1900, coloured according the party in charge:
Second, a comparison with other countries, showing the extent to which we're an outlier:
Why has this happened? What are we getting for the extra money?
A lot of it looks like catch-up after the Osborne austerity years. Basically, Osborne's fiscal adjustment put an unusual amount of weight on spending restraint rather than tax increases. This put increasing pressure on public services, public investment etc, and the current government is playing catch up by raising taxes - I have some sympathy for them TBH. The underlying issue is an ageing society, which means a smaller income tax base and more demands for spending on health and pensions. All other spending is still being squeezed, which is why we feel we are paying more taxes and getting less for it... That feeling is correct!
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
6) Does anyone actually expect the pot holes not to be a massive problem again come next spring?
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
“Takeaways from talks with Polish security and defence experts here in Poznan,🇵🇱. Warning: It’s what I heard. Not necessarily what you want to hear!
➡️ Poland will keep arming Ukraine. Silently before and once again openly after the election. “There is no other way.”
➡️ Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower. “They need capable fighters more urgent than they need western arms. They are losing their best. NATO training so far is not sufficient enough.”
➡️ The Russian army is getting stronger, not weaker. “They learned from their mistakes. They are much more efficient now, than they have been a year ago.”
➡️ Russian drones improve by the month. “Their new Shaheeds make less noise, making it harder to hear and hence aim at them. Their Lancets have more range. Their FVP drones are getting more and more every month. Drones will possibly decide that war.”
➡️ Ukrainian strategic victory “still possible, but certainly not guaranteed”. Europe must “prepare for a long war”.
➡️ Tue country becomes a playground for Western defense industry. “They are floating in to test their newest weapons.” Ukraine and arms companies “learn and lot from each other. It’s a win-win.”
My impression is Ukrainians are currently carefully picking their way through minefields whilst under artillery fire. It's not at all clear whether the bottleneck is lack of trained mine clearing specialists, lack of tanks, or lack other specialised equipment. But lack of personnel in general isn't the problem, unless you're expecting them to fight this like it's WW1.
That said, there is consternation about Shahed/Geran drones amongst the Ukrainians I know. How can Iran be producing better kit in greater quantities than the west? Why do they seem to be stuffed full of western components - what happened to sanctions?
I don't think that drones are likely to help the Russians gain territory, or even to defend what they already hold. But they are weighing on civilian morale.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I always thought a Korean style armistice was the most likely outcome. Actually, at first, I thought a complete Russian victory was the most likely outcome. But since it became clear that Russia was surprisingly bad at fighting wars and the Ukraine surprisingly good, I've thought Korea. There's just too much Ukraine to take back, and taking territory is hard. That said, a Korea style outcome covers a range of possibilities, some of which are actually, strategically, quite good for Ukraine, even if very very bad for the Ukrainians who end up on the wrong side of the border. Ukraine could become a fully fledged part of the west under the protection of NATO. And while it's hard to see it recovering all of its territory, it's conceivable now to see it ending up recovering some of the strategically most important bits.
Meanwhile, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of men, its place in the world economy, abandonment of its brightest and best and what was left of its reputation, Russia gains some battered and bleak ex-industrial areas.
I'm not saying we in the west should settle for this. But while I find it hard to see Ukraine winning, I find it easy to see an outcome which is much better for Ukraine than Russia.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Small edit, after some reflection:
The Lib Dems are perfectly placed for NIMBY style opposition to this. "20mph for St Cuthbert's Primary School in Southwest England-shire! - vote the Tories out"
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
1) So between two thirds to three quarters are motorists, and many of those in the smaller minority who aren't will be passengers quite often too. So yes by your own figures we should be investing in infrastructure.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
When I think of Cameron and Osborne, all I can think of is their stupid decision to call an EU referendum.
To be fair I think Osborne said it was a stupid idea and Cameron went ahead anyway
I think Cameron thought it would be a rinse-repeat of the Scottish referendum. He got too confident after that, that people would look like they were teetering on the edge of something seismic, but would ultimately vote for the status quo.
Cameron's hubris led him to believe he had won Indyref when in fact his negative campaign (caricatured as too wee, too poor, too stupid) had seen a steady rise in the Yes vote until the last-minute intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson put the positive case for the union. Hence the similar negative campaign on Brexit: Project Fear.
First, the change in total tax receipts per parliament since 1900, coloured according the party in charge:
Second, a comparison with other countries, showing the extent to which we're an outlier:
Why has this happened? What are we getting for the extra money?
Paying off of covid debt? Giving money to people to heat their homes last winter?
If you look at HM Treasury public sector spending by function data, and compare pre GFC (2007) numbers with the latest (2022) you get the following: spending is up by 5.4pp of GDP. The four biggest components of that rise are debt service (2.2pp), enterprise and economic development (2.0pp), health (1.9pp) and social protection (0.6pp). The last two are ageing related. The first comes from higher debt post GFC and post Covid and higher interest rates. The second category is a bit mysterious. During Covid it reflected the furlough scheme. Maybe now it includes energy price support? Regional funds repatriated from the EU? Education spending down by 0.8pp. And people criticise Labour for wanting to spend more on 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.
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
Yep, via a switch to centrist, socially liberal, green and detoxifying policies.
How likely do you think the next Tory leader is going to meet that formulation?
When I think of Cameron and Osborne, all I can think of is their stupid decision to call an EU referendum.
To be fair I think Osborne said it was a stupid idea and Cameron went ahead anyway
I think Cameron thought it would be a rinse-repeat of the Scottish referendum. He got too confident after that, that people would look like they were teetering on the edge of something seismic, but would ultimately vote for the status quo.
Cameron's hubris led him to believe he had won Indyref when in fact his negative campaign (caricatured as too wee, too poor, too stupid) had seen a steady rise in the Yes vote until the last-minute intervention of Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson put the positive case for the union.
Other way round. The last minute intervention was a heavily negative case.
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
North Devon will stay Con. As will Newbury. Popular female MPs.
North Cornwall and Torbay very likely to stay Con too.
There are 15,000 majorities you are talking about overturning. The move nationally is to Labour. These seats are not going to return to the LibDems on their current level of polling.
It looks a pretty sound prediction to me. In fact it's very close to what I would be betting on if the spreads were up now. Maybe I would have Tory seats a bit lower, and Labour a bit higher, but not by much. The LD forecast looks highly plausible. They will do well, but have some stonking majorities to overcome.
Now when is that nice Mr Sunak calling the Election?
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
It’s not going to catch Labour on the hoof. A spring election is widely speculated. Of course Labour have plans for a spring election.
Well full marks for pb pedantry, but I think you might be focusing on the wrong issue.
But I'll get involved nonetheless. When I was at school, several school buses were coaches. And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
Read it: definitely a school bus - it's 8am, it's bringing kids to school. It probably looks like a coach but you'd still term it a school bus. Clearly WKGS and CGGS have large catchments. Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
What is the difference between a bus and a coach?
It's one of those 'you know it when you see it' things. A bus looks like a bus and a coach looks like a coach. Have you got to clamber up three steps to get on? Is there a luggage compartment? You're probably on a coach. Does the thing teeter entertainingly like it's about to fall over when it goes around a roundabout? Is there a bell to alert the driver to your desire to disembark? Bus. But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
Next one - what is the difference between a ship and a boat?
I was told that the difference is how they turn - when a ship turns it leans out in the opposite direction to or away from (if that makes sense) the turn but a boat leans in to the direction of the turn. This could of course be bollocks but inevitably there is some strange rather than obvious reason such as size.
I've used you can put a boat on a ship but not a ship on a boat.
But you can put a ship on a barge. And even boats as large as nuclear missile submarines in the USN and RN.
Somewhat anachronistically Patrick O’Brien taught me that a ship possessed 3 or more masts. I also have a vague memory that a ship had to be commanded by a captain.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
Category 1 are probably unlikely to be able to vote, due to not having passports, etc. Although some may have bus passes.
Wow. I hadn't considered that synergy between the policies.
Machiavellian stuff.
Can't find any Uk info but the Harvard academic Benedicts-Kessner reckons those without a car are less likely to vote:
On Ukraine it feels to me that we’re at the 1916 or 1917 stage of the war, given WW1 is probably the closest analogue we have.
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
“Takeaways from talks with Polish security and defence experts here in Poznan,🇵🇱. Warning: It’s what I heard. Not necessarily what you want to hear!
➡️ Poland will keep arming Ukraine. Silently before and once again openly after the election. “There is no other way.”
➡️ Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower. “They need capable fighters more urgent than they need western arms. They are losing their best. NATO training so far is not sufficient enough.”
➡️ The Russian army is getting stronger, not weaker. “They learned from their mistakes. They are much more efficient now, than they have been a year ago.”
➡️ Russian drones improve by the month. “Their new Shaheeds make less noise, making it harder to hear and hence aim at them. Their Lancets have more range. Their FVP drones are getting more and more every month. Drones will possibly decide that war.”
➡️ Ukrainian strategic victory “still possible, but certainly not guaranteed”. Europe must “prepare for a long war”.
➡️ Tue country becomes a playground for Western defense industry. “They are floating in to test their newest weapons.” Ukraine and arms companies “learn and lot from each other. It’s a win-win.”
My impression is Ukrainians are currently carefully picking their way through minefields whilst under artillery fire. It's not at all clear whether the bottleneck is lack of trained mine clearing specialists, lack of tanks, or lack other specialised equipment. But lack of personnel in general isn't the problem, unless you're expecting them to fight this like it's WW1.
That said, there is consternation about Shahed/Geran drones amongst the Ukrainians I know. How can Iran be producing better kit in greater quantities than the west? Why do they seem to be stuffed full of western components - what happened to sanctions?
I don't think hat drones are likely to help the Russians gain territory, or even to defend what they already hold. But they are weighing on civilian morale.
From what I can see there are several things:
1 - Volume and density of mines.
2 - Going slowly because conditions - eg inability to enforce air superiority - do not permit going faster or using armour whilst minimising casualties. Much of that is at the door of inadequate supplies of weaponry / inadequate commitment & lack of clarity around a rapid Ukrainian victory from the West.
3 - Inability to deal effectively enough with certain categories of Russian weaponry from time to time - helicopters with updated missiles was one recently, now it is certain drones. Again linked to irresolute Western support.
We have to face the possibility that Ukraine might lose
Total victory was never in question. Ukraine's tanks were never going to roll up to the Kremlin. At best, there will be a negotiated ceasefire, and that is probably the best either side can hope for. Of course, the likely terms of any armistice have yet to be settled.
My view is we are sadly probably looking at a similar situation to Korea. At some point the conflict will freeze, and the appetite of Russia/The West will be sufficiently exhausted that a line will be drawn. Neither side will acknowledge the other sides territorial claim. Neither side will make any concessions on what territory is validly theirs. The remainder of Ukraine will come under the NATO and likely EU banner. It will take significant regime change in Russia or its collapse to possibly reopen the issue.
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
I’ve been saying this for a year. On here. The likely outcome is a Korean-style armistice
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
I always thought a Korean style armistice was the most likely outcome.
50-100k US/NATO troops permanently stationed there ? Possibly.
Comments
The economy is not in a position to make much change. Starmer will find out what Truss found out - Mr Market won't let you make meaningful changes. Especially if he has a tiny majority - or more likely, no majority at all.
Thousands of prisoners remain incarcerated on open-ended prison sentences under a now defunct scheme that even its creator, former home secretary Lord David Blunkett, feels "deep regret" over. Sky News speaks to families fighting to get their loved ones released.
https://news.sky.com/story/11-years-for-stealing-a-mobile-phone-inside-the-lives-of-ipp-prisoners-serving-sentences-of-psychological-torture-12965479
You keep presenting statistics that show a majority drive, with odd glee at that as if it proves your point.
That's a majority with a car in the entire North West.
After putting the link up this morning for the walk I’m doing tomorrow, the donations have leapt up. To all of you who have donated, thank you so much. Some of you have identified yourselves as PBers and have been really generous - our WhatsApp group has lit up up with people asking what PB is, so I have had to explain and out myself as a political nerd who spends far too much time on here!
Isaac’s parents, Leanne and Ryan, have asked me to pass on their sincere thanks and gratitude for your donations. We’ve passed 50% of our total this morning, and everyone on the WhatsApp group is made up.
Sincerely, thank you so, so much from all of us ❤️
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/isaac-phoenix-davison?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=fundraising&utm_content=isaac-phoenix-davison&utm_campaign=pfp-whatsapp&utm_term=a5d00617328744428695a5496d68e55f
Hmm. I’d need to know more about those before my heart bleeds for him
Late 80’s IIRC.
I'd suggest the LibDems best chance of more seats is if Labour drop to a point where they will not get a majority. People might then be more inclined to give the LibDems more seats - if they have some policies to promote by then.
Once Labour are in Government I think (hope) there will be meaningful change but not in the Truss way.
Many sensible changes don't cost much.
A small example - Instructing DVLA to only issue driving tests to named drivers and not to spivs who buy up all the slots.
Another - allowing refugee applicants to work while their application is sorted out.
Applying NI to pensioners. Removing the cliff edges with massive marginal rates in the tax system. Etc Etc Etc
I foresee a similar point here. Pro-motorist policies are popular and do resonate with many people. However, it just isn’t what most people are thinking about when they choose their national government. So I think the impact of this will be limited. It might help shore up a small proportion of the core vote.
But if they was violence involved in them, my sympathy drains away. Sixteen convictions
More info required
But on a week where Russia has made absolutely no forward progress, while Ukraine has liberated more strategic land around Verbove and made impressive strikes against Crimea and Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the only people who'd be bringing that up this week should be scheduled to arrive tomorrow morning.
But I'll get involved nonetheless.
When I was at school, several school buses were coaches.
And the school buses which were buses would ususally have about 70 people on - 50 is more than plausible.
But what was a school bus doing on a motorway? That's not a normal route to school. So maybe it was an outing. In which case the term 'school bus' is probably not quite right.
Sod it, I'll have to actually read the story.
NI should apply to all income which Income Tax applies to. Whether that be income from salaried employment, self-employment, pensions, investments, letting out homes or anything else.
Suella Braverman is named after a character from the TV show Dallas, Sue Ellen Ewing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman#Early_life_and_education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKx2hkiP8RA
Also, one of my Goddaughters is at one of those schools. Pretty confident she won't be on that bus, mind you.
That is the problem. They’ve got tons of weapons. But they are running out of men to use them. Russia is not
Of course there is a possibility that Ukraine loses, although you have to wonder what that defeat looks like. An acceptance that they cannot evict the Orcs from all terrain that Ukraine considers Ukranian? Accepting that peace talks is the only way out and that may involve giving up territory? Total defeat with 10% population taken out and shot in a ravine?
It’s not an outcome I want, but it’s one I’ve thought likely for some time now.
11 years for stealing a mobile phone: Inside the lives of IPP prisoners serving sentences of 'psychological torture'
Thousands of prisoners remain incarcerated on open-ended prison sentences under a now defunct scheme that even its creator, former home secretary Lord David Blunkett, feels "deep regret" over. Sky News speaks to families fighting to get their loved ones released.
https://news.sky.com/story/11-years-for-stealing-a-mobile-phone-inside-the-lives-of-ipp-prisoners-serving-sentences-of-psychological-torture-12965479
But a coach can fulfil the functions of a bus (and vice versa, in some circumstances).
And in the Wirral the M53 absolutely is a sound way to get about. Wouldn't surprise me that buses might go on the M53 at one junction and get off it again at the next, its a perfectly sound way to use motorways and why we should have more of them.
Hope everyone is OK.
"If so, what are we doing in this shelter?"
The winning side does not see its fleet headquarters being hit with impunity
If, and this is a very big if, Sunak runs from here through to Christmas on a lot of policy announcements, then they may be hoping that this gives them some sort of momentum to narrow the lead (I remain to be convinced, but let’s just say they manage it).
If I were Sunak going into a spring campaign with a deficit of say 8 to 5 points would look relatively tempting. It catches Labour on the hoof who will probably be expecting October, and with a bit of swing back there is a plausible route to say 220-250 seats. A defeat, but a noble one.
The big argument against this is that no one forces themselves into an election they know they’re going to lose, and Sunak can claim 2 years in the job if he sticks it through to October, which sounds better than 18 months.
Do the Tories expect a big recovery or things to get much worse economically later next year ?
Hanging on as late as possible seems more likely in the hope of something popping up .
First, the change in total tax receipts per parliament since 1900, coloured according the party in charge:
Second, a comparison with other countries, showing the extent to which we're an outlier:
Why has this happened? What are we getting for the extra money?
Now you’re all suddenly agreeing. Pff. I feel like the cool kid who liked Heilung long before they were famous and now everyone’s suddenly got a download of Krigsgaldr
The loser would likely appeal there so it could rumble on further. It’s pretty clear the threats by no 10 re the ECHR are aimed not just there but at the 5 judges hearing the case at the SC .
The current thinking is that the government should win , we don’t know yet though which judges are hearing the case and that could be a factor .
The Conservatives have got us on the path towards a Nordic utopia. /s
Edit: it was a meme then, possibly avant la lettre Dawkinsienne.
The focus on "change in tax revenue" is open to being misleading imo.
When I last checked we were still some way below the EU and OECD averages in tax take, despite the rather misleading but-but-buttery about how it was the "highest for 40 / 50 years".
I'd suggest that more appropriate comparisons are with international peers.
1) Not everyone is a motorist. Roughly 25% to 33% of households in the the "red wall" don't have access to one at all. I'm not sure if those people are likely swing voters - they tend to be poorer, higher rates of disability, younger or older... dunno.
2) Motorists are also cyclists, pedestrians, users of public transport. The effectiveness of the wedge depends on those who consider themselves primarily or exclusively motorists.
3) The STATS19 data for 2022 just came out. Labour could use that - 30,000 dead or seriously injured on our roads last year. (Plus, sadly, this coach crash)
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that public transport outside London has seen woeful under-investment, now including HS2. This could be seen as a cheap ploy to distract from that. Most people commute by car by necessity rather than preference, as we see from the popularity of comprehensive public transport networks where they exist.
5) Age. There are stunning breakdowns of just how poorly the Conservatives are doing with under-50s. For young families, there are local concerns about driving around schools that Labour could "weaponise". For younger people, car ownership, licenses etc are at all time low after the pandemic, exacerbating a long-term trend. This policy might work in the short term, but in 2029, 2034?
In the real world leaving has shown just how important the single market was/is. (And we will gradually get back to that). We are also re-aligning in Science and other areas.
So by having the referendum as lot of good things have happened (albeit with some bad stuff, although its hard to disentangle the Brexit bad from the Covid bad and the European war bad).
Rizzer ?
Sunak claims ‘anti-motorist’ policies are against British values
That said, there is consternation about Shahed/Geran drones amongst the Ukrainians I know. How can Iran be producing better kit in greater quantities than the west? Why do they seem to be stuffed full of western components - what happened to sanctions?
I don't think that drones are likely to help the Russians gain territory, or even to defend what they already hold. But they are weighing on civilian morale.
Actually, at first, I thought a complete Russian victory was the most likely outcome. But since it became clear that Russia was surprisingly bad at fighting wars and the Ukraine surprisingly good, I've thought Korea. There's just too much Ukraine to take back, and taking territory is hard.
That said, a Korea style outcome covers a range of possibilities, some of which are actually, strategically, quite good for Ukraine, even if very very bad for the Ukrainians who end up on the wrong side of the border. Ukraine could become a fully fledged part of the west under the protection of NATO. And while it's hard to see it recovering all of its territory, it's conceivable now to see it ending up recovering some of the strategically most important bits.
Meanwhile, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of men, its place in the world economy, abandonment of its brightest and best and what was left of its reputation, Russia gains some battered and bleak ex-industrial areas.
I'm not saying we in the west should settle for this. But while I find it hard to see Ukraine winning, I find it easy to see an outcome which is much better for Ukraine than Russia.
The Lib Dems are perfectly placed for NIMBY style opposition to this. "20mph for St Cuthbert's Primary School in Southwest England-shire! - vote the Tories out"
Machiavellian stuff.
2) And by the same logic cyclists, pedestrians and users of public transport are motorists too. So again, invest in infrastructure.
3) Our roads are remarkably safe, as those figures demonstrate. Billions of journeys made annually, but the risk of an accident is thankfully miniscule and has almost never been smaller.
4) It's a truth universally acknowledged that our road infrastructure nationwide has seen woeful under investment. The last major motorways to be built were half a century ago. Most people commute by car by choice as is shown where comprehensive public transport and smooth operating open roads are available, people choose the cars.
5) Yes many young families need to get their kids to school by car. Anyone who took an anti-parent weaponisation seeking to harm bringing kids to school would be on a hiding to nothing.
Education spending down by 0.8pp. And people criticise Labour for wanting to spend more on schools!
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/driving-turnout-effect-car-ownership-electoral-participation
Manpower and weaponry are one thing, but what often wins or loses existential wars like these is the wider ability of each belligerent to keep its economy running. In that context Western timidity in enforcing sanctions on Russian oil exports is infuriating. Russia needs to be starved of the financial means to wage war. What were originally pretty effective sanctions have become leaky.
If Russia has any kind of win from this war (by which I mean being allowed to keep any of its 2922 gains) then that doesn’t end the war, it simply means a rest while Russia rearms and then another SMO in a few years time, and probably some attempts on other ex Soviet countries too.
The West aren’t treating this war with the seriousness it deserves.
1 - Volume and density of mines.
2 - Going slowly because conditions - eg inability to enforce air superiority - do not permit going faster or using armour whilst minimising casualties. Much of that is at the door of inadequate supplies of weaponry / inadequate commitment & lack of clarity around a rapid Ukrainian victory from the West.
3 - Inability to deal effectively enough with certain categories of Russian weaponry from time to time - helicopters with updated missiles was one recently, now it is certain drones. Again linked to irresolute Western support.
Possibly.