So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
No.
I was surprised he lost in that seat, actually, which tends to be quite loyal to incumbents and is very parochial in its outlook. I thought Jane Dodds being from Wrexham would tell against her. I clearly underestimated the effect the words 'expenses cheat' have on the electorate!
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
0%.
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
0%.
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
They'll look like right tossers with a Bone hold.
Edit - however, he doesn't have the whip at the moment, correct? In which case I don't think he can actually stand for the Tories.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
Me! I genuinely hadn’t heard the name before this morning, as opposed to all the other names on the nominations list.
Wow. Maybe this is because you live abroad? The Lionesses enjoyed a very high media profile here in the UK this year, I would guess the average person could name more members of that team than the England cricket team.
Maybe. I’d like to think that I follow most sports, but have to admit I’ve never watched women’s football.
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
0%.
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
They'll look like right tossers with a Bone hold.
Edit - however, he doesn't have the whip at the moment, correct? In which case I don't think he can actually stand for the Tories.
He doesn’t have the whip because he’s not in Parliament. It’ll be up to the local party if they let him stand again, unless CCHQ intervenes to keep him off the ballot.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
0%.
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
They'll look like right tossers with a Bone hold.
Edit - however, he doesn't have the whip at the moment, correct? In which case I don't think he can actually stand for the Tories.
He doesn’t have the whip because he’s not in Parliament. It’ll be up to the local party if they let him stand again, unless CCHQ intervenes to keep him off the ballot.
My understanding is any Conservative MP who has lost the whip is not permitted to be on the approved candidates list until it is restored, which it hasn't been. Is that not correct?
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
Me! I genuinely hadn’t heard the name before this morning, as opposed to all the other names on the nominations list.
Wow. Maybe this is because you live abroad? The Lionesses enjoyed a very high media profile here in the UK this year, I would guess the average person could name more members of that team than the England cricket team.
Maybe. I’d like to think that I follow most sports, but have to admit I’ve never watched women’s football.
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
Women's Football is becoming increasingly big here, so I am not surprised. Still way behind the men's game in terms of following, but definitely growing.
On my local park there are quite a few girls teams on a Saturday morning. It never used to be the case.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
She is the best of a bad lot, but ran a very disappointing challenge last contest.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
Short of an alibi, the only successful denial I could see would be to get a doctor to go on the record saying that such a priapic event has been medically impossible since 2011. This would also inspire some sympathy, though perhaps people don't vote for the impotent.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
I see we are to have a by-election in Peter Bone's constituency.
Peter Bone still denies “everything” and I suspect will be the Con candidate in the seat. That might make it harder not easier for Labour to win it, is my reading of it.
Not sure I understand the logic here . Most guilty people proclaim their innocence , Bone can deny as much as he likes , the panel found him guilty. Why didn’t he appeal the original decision ? Not sure bullying and exposing oneself is a winner on a campaign leaflet .
He will deny it. And rely on his personal support built up over years is the logic. In a tight race that couple of thousand extra could make all the difference.
So the Tories are going to give the green light and allow a candidate whose been found guilty of those offenses to stand as their official candidate . Really ! Good luck with that .
It will be interesting if they do.
Would this be the first byelection where the recalled candidate stood again for their party?
Brecon and Radnor in 2019.
So not a great track record for the recalled incumbent?
0%.
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
They'll look like right tossers with a Bone hold.
Edit - however, he doesn't have the whip at the moment, correct? In which case I don't think he can actually stand for the Tories.
He doesn’t have the whip because he’s not in Parliament. It’ll be up to the local party if they let him stand again, unless CCHQ intervenes to keep him off the ballot.
My understanding is any Conservative MP who has lost the whip is not permitted to be on the approved candidates list until it is restored, which it hasn't been. Is that not correct?
It looks like Bone and his constituency party could present Sunak with a contentious decision to make. And then, if official candidate, bookies would have to price up his chances of winning - which might not be that long. And then all the pressure would be on Labour, the only ones who could come away as big losers.
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
Me! I genuinely hadn’t heard the name before this morning, as opposed to all the other names on the nominations list.
Wow. Maybe this is because you live abroad? The Lionesses enjoyed a very high media profile here in the UK this year, I would guess the average person could name more members of that team than the England cricket team.
Maybe. I’d like to think that I follow most sports, but have to admit I’ve never watched women’s football.
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
Women's Football is becoming increasingly big here, so I am not surprised. Still way behind the men's game in terms of following, but definitely growing.
On my local park there are quite a few girls teams on a Saturday morning. It never used to be the case.
That's the point, really. The World Cup saw women's football become mainstream, and the outstanding personality in the team - and role model for not a few - just got recognition for that.
Sandpit is curiously out of touch on occasion. Though right to note KJT's achievement.
I suspect the latter didn't do better on the voting because she's something of an introvert.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
I tend to agree. There is also no electoral benefit to waiting until the last minute to reveal their tax cuts in a Peter Bone-esque fashion. If you can do tax cuts, do them now so the effects can be felt.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
ok, it's a safer seat than I thought. I thought it was one affected by boundary changes but I think I was confusing it with Plymouth.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
I tend to agree. There is also no electoral benefit to waiting until the last minute to reveal their tax cuts in a Peter Bone-esque fashion. If you can do tax cuts, do them now so the effects can be felt.
And they have. Which points to May 2nd.
All the “vain Sunak loves being Primeminister so will hang on to ensure 2 years” might be missing he has already shaking hands on his exciting new role in America, and can’t wait to get to work?
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid. It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.
You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.
Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one
It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.
I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid. It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.
You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.
Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one
I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.
Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.
So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.
The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.
If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.
Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
Larger drop in inflation than expected from 4.6% to 3.9%.
It means cumulative inflation over the last 6 months has been just 0.3%.
I think the battle has been won - it's now just a matter of the high inflation from early 2023 falling out of the 12 month figures that get reported.
Why can’t interest get slashed now? high interest rates hurting households and whole economy for sure, but why if it’s all so unnecessary pain?
High Interest rates are not bad for everyone. Savers have been screwed by ZIRP. It is nice to be able to get a decent rate above inflation now.
Anwyay, as someone posted here yesterday, the MPC has 3 Hawks, 1 Dove, and the rest are neutral. They will not cut anytime soon. At the last meeting some voted for further increases.
Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.
TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.
My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.
Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
I like aspects of PM, but I find 'moderate' (I don't see how the highest tax since the 1970's/higher taxes than Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto is any sense moderate) Tories an illogical breed. What are these 'crazier tunes' that he wants to avoid? And does he not realise that as a centrist, he would only want to avoid them until they became reality, whereupon he would agree with them, but a little bit mushier?
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
Me! I genuinely hadn’t heard the name before this morning, as opposed to all the other names on the nominations list.
Wow. Maybe this is because you live abroad? The Lionesses enjoyed a very high media profile here in the UK this year, I would guess the average person could name more members of that team than the England cricket team.
Maybe. I’d like to think that I follow most sports, but have to admit I’ve never watched women’s football.
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
Women's Football is becoming increasingly big here, so I am not surprised. Still way behind the men's game in terms of following, but definitely growing.
On my local park there are quite a few girls teams on a Saturday morning. It never used to be the case.
It may be growing but it is still not as big as athletics and cricket. Hence the endless attempts to try and push it. The BBC are particularly keen on this - go onto their website and the front page banners often don’t distinguish whether a match is the men’s or women’s game, thus encouraging users to click onto the link and so use the corresponding traffic stats as proof the women’s game is growing in popularity.
I watched SPOTY last night and the BBC were clearly tipping the scale for Earps. The contrast was clearest when it came to discussing the respective Ashes and Women’s World Cup. The talk about the Ashes was mashed between the men’s and women’s series and the women’s series probably got more airtime. If you looked at how the BBC presented it, you wouldn’t have guessed 10% of the drama behind the Series.
Meanwhile, with the WWC, there was a clear, long narrative about England’s progress and how close they came. And, just in case you didn’t get the narrative, the Spanish team’s scandal was then brought in, even though it had sweet FA to do with things. Even my sister, who consistently talks about women’s football and watches the games, said “why are they mentioning that on here?”.
Earps may have won but she definitely wasn’t the best candidate. It should have gone to either Broad or KJT, both of whom had, in different ways, compelling stories, Broad for his long Test series and its end, KJT for her struggles and eventually victory. Earps seems to be nice enough and has had her own struggles but saving a penalty and sticking your tongue out shouldn’t mean you are a shoo-in for SPOTY.
Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.
TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.
My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain. Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
99.9% of people in the UK
Seems unlikely, with WC viewing figures of 20m plus.
So it seems that the BBC are now putting the sports awards show on some random day in the middle of the week, then giving the main award to someone that no-one has heard of and who didn’t win anything this year?
Who hasn't heard of Mary Earps?
Me! I genuinely hadn’t heard the name before this morning, as opposed to all the other names on the nominations list.
Wow. Maybe this is because you live abroad? The Lionesses enjoyed a very high media profile here in the UK this year, I would guess the average person could name more members of that team than the England cricket team.
Maybe. I’d like to think that I follow most sports, but have to admit I’ve never watched women’s football.
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
Women's Football is becoming increasingly big here, so I am not surprised. Still way behind the men's game in terms of following, but definitely growing.
On my local park there are quite a few girls teams on a Saturday morning. It never used to be the case.
It may be growing but it is still not as big as athletics and cricket. Hence the endless attempts to try and push it. The BBC are particularly keen on this - go onto their website and the front page banners often don’t distinguish whether a match is the men’s or women’s game, thus encouraging users to click onto the link and so use the corresponding traffic stats as proof the women’s game is growing in popularity.
I watched SPOTY last night and the BBC were clearly tipping the scale for Earps. The contrast was clearest when it came to discussing the respective Ashes and Women’s World Cup. The talk about the Ashes was mashed between the men’s and women’s series and the women’s series probably got more airtime. If you looked at how the BBC presented it, you wouldn’t have guessed 10% of the drama behind the Series.
Meanwhile, with the WWC, there was a clear, long narrative about England’s progress and how close they came. And, just in case you didn’t get the narrative, the Spanish team’s scandal was then brought in, even though it had sweet FA to do with things. Even my sister, who consistently talks about women’s football and watches the games, said “why are they mentioning that on here?”.
Earps may have won but she definitely wasn’t the best candidate. It should have gone to either Broad or KJT, both of whom had, in different ways, compelling stories, Broad for his long Test series and its end, KJT for her struggles and eventually victory. Earps seems to be nice enough and has had her own struggles but saving a penalty and sticking your tongue out shouldn’t mean you are a shoo-in for SPOTY.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
Yes and no.
The thing to remember about Portsmouth, especially Portsmouth North is that it's a bit of the northern Red Wall that broke off and got stuck back in the wrong place.
For a long time, the area was more Conservative than you might expect because of the navy and Labour being unsound on defence. Flipped to Labour in '97 and Mordaunt won it in 2010.
Pretty Brexitty, and Conservatives on the city council are increasingly squeezed out by Portsmouth Independents. Long story short, there's potential for it to swing far and fast.
Mordaunt should be OK, but she's not as safe as the bare figures suggest.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
ok, it's a safer seat than I thought. I thought it was one affected by boundary changes but I think I was confusing it with Plymouth.
Even in 97 and 2001, the Labour majority was fairly slim.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
I like aspects of PM, but I find 'moderate' (I don't see how the highest tax since the 1970's/higher taxes than Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto is any sense moderate) Tories an illogical breed. What are these 'crazier tunes' that he wants to avoid? And does he not realise that as a centrist, he would only want to avoid them until they became reality, whereupon he would agree with them, but a little bit mushier?
Braverman is a crazier tune. Badenoch.
Some people who have been Conservatives all their lives, don’t want to follow a leader into a populist agenda, having to wage a woke war or defend Enoch Powell views.
Right wing populism isn’t British Conservatism, in fact it’s the enemy.
You lose a job interview in the first 10 seconds apparently. The Tories could lose the election after next in the first 10 months of a new leaders regime.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
I have mentioned this before, but surely the company that owns whatsapp could provide the missing texts? We are always being told that once something goes on the internet it is there forever.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
Okay. 🙂
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
The “I” has MI6 announcing water is wet - to borrow a phrase.
Teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful - Kemi Badenoch owns the Daily Mail tomorrow.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
Telegraph - Starmer frees dangerous criminals. “What Starmer did has a terrible impact on my family. It shouldn’t have been allowed.”
Sunak has spent a lot Tory money on election guru’s, to hollow out Starmer with this stuff slipped into friendly media. Why does it feel like it won’t work?
Because Labour are such heavy odds on favourites, it doesn’t make sense to think that they won’t win. I can’t see how they won’t win myself.
But NOM was 1/10 in 2015, and people on here were talking of it as free money for months before the GE
Remain was big odds on and tipped as value at 2/9 on here in 2016. It was 1/12 at the close of polling and it lost
Then Theresa May’s Tories were 1/6 to get a majority in 2017 and that didn’t happen either
The only successful fav has been Boris’s GE, and this site was getting bombarded with Corbynites saying it was going to be a lot closer than the betting made it
So, I’m with you, I think it’s all over. But three of the last four big favs in elections have been turned over when they seemed certain to win
It’s also a case how long polls have been set on something, that makes the turn around a shock. Neither leave or remain had a long history of being 15% or more ahead in 2016.
My point though wasn’t so much the attempt to hollow out Starmer by spinning titbits of his record from 5 year stint as DPP actually flipping the polls around, but will this strategy even hurt Starmer? It feels like a political campaign going through the motions, like a sports team in the middle of a slump.
All the usual donors have come to the pub to watch Rishi strip and drop up and down on a poll. A jugs gone round that’s fill to the brim. The usual strategists hired. The usual outlets publishing what’s been given them. But it just looks so bland and half hearted on the page, considering how much it all costs.
Trump on the other hand would make all this actually work. Saville, Saville, Saville.
Obviously Boris would have been better at that kind of attack . It doesn’t seem to suit Sunak to go down that road. Personally I think he/they should be highlighting the way Sir Keir has gone back on almost everything he has said in his eight years as a politician; it’s all out there. He plays the ‘Mr Integrity’ card but it’s all nonsense. He does look and sound like someone honest that you’d trust though, so it might be difficult to shift the image.
Better that than shouting that he’s a nonse defender etc, I think. That just gives him the chance to say they’re acting like internet conspiracy theorists, and look more statesmanlike as a result
Agreed.
The better cards the Tories have to play are, yes, it’s been tough, but we’ve turned a corner, with us that means tax cuts, with Labour that means Green Taxes.
But just as Sunak is not the Trumpian “Saville, Saville, Saville” effective attack dog, nor does his incessant upbeat messaging work with the sober, yes it’s been tough, we’ve turned the corner, you now have the choice of green shoots nourished into tax cuts under us, or green shoots trampled by Labours ideological commitments under them.
That sober message handled deftly, sober statesmanlike, would narrow the polls.
sober message?
handled deftly??
I think they’re well beyond all that.
Oh, they seem to retain some facility in that respect.
That’s brilliant. Story of a minister in this government being straight and honest about something dodgy.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
That rather presupposes she holds her seat.
Being leader rather than leader of house would probably assure that?
Well, the PM has never lost (his) seat at an election, although the only two months ex PM Balfour did in 1906. But I wouldn't like to say it's assured. It's not a large sample size because it's quite unusual for party leaders to have marginal seats. Either they sit for safe seats so they can concentrate on their careers, or having lost their seat they are picked for a safer one anyway.
It would need a 17% swing to remove Penny.
Not that marginal to start with?
I like aspects of PM, but I find 'moderate' (I don't see how the highest tax since the 1970's/higher taxes than Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto is any sense moderate) Tories an illogical breed. What are these 'crazier tunes' that he wants to avoid? And does he not realise that as a centrist, he would only want to avoid them until they became reality, whereupon he would agree with them, but a little bit mushier?
Braverman is a crazier tune. Badenoch.
Some people who have been Conservatives all their lives, don’t want to follow a leader into a populist agenda, having to wage a woke war or defend Enoch Powell views.
Right wing populism isn’t British Conservatism, in fact it’s the enemy.
You lose a job interview in the first 10 seconds apparently. The Tories could lose the election after next in the first 10 months of a new leaders regime.
Aspects of the war on woke are crap, mostly imo the tendency to whip up a big fuss about it rather than actually act to fix it. That said, I don't find Mordaunt's position on gender issues to be more 'moderate' than that of Badenoch, nor to be more aligned with traditional Conservatism, and I'd be very impressed if anybody can argue convincingly that they are.
Comments
Penny Mordaunt: Boris Johnson’s messages vanished from my phone
MP tells Covid inquiry that then prime minister’s chief of staff ignored repeated attempts to discuss matter
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/19/penny-mordaunt-boris-johnsons-messages-vanished-from-my-phone
I was surprised he lost in that seat, actually, which tends to be quite loyal to incumbents and is very parochial in its outlook. I thought Jane Dodds being from Wrexham would tell against her. I clearly underestimated the effect the words 'expenses cheat' have on the electorate!
Massive derailment for Starmer and Labour if Bone holds though.
Edit - however, he doesn't have the whip at the moment, correct? In which case I don't think he can actually stand for the Tories.
My Dad is now a Penny Mordaunt fan. He thinks if Sunak is replaced with Penny the Conservatives not only get a much better than expected election result, but this allows Penny to stay on as leader and it blocks the populist types with crazier tunes everyone has to dance to, from taking over. Though desperate and full of ifs and buts, it is at least a comforting thought for Con moderates to cling to isn’t it?
Having Badenoch as LOTO banging on about gender and woke at PMQs, worse still, Suella gaining control of the party might just be months away now 🫣
My vote from the list would have gone to Katerina Johnson-Thompson. A long history of injury and disappointment at major events, finally culminating in the world championship gold medal this year.
On my local park there are quite a few girls teams on a Saturday morning. It never used to be the case.
https://x.com/torstenbell/status/1737373618261336505?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The World Cup saw women's football become mainstream, and the outstanding personality in the team - and role model for not a few - just got recognition for that.
Sandpit is curiously out of touch on occasion.
Though right to note KJT's achievement.
I suspect the latter didn't do better on the voting because she's something of an introvert.
Not that marginal to start with?
All the “vain Sunak loves being Primeminister so will hang on to ensure 2 years” might be missing he has already shaking hands on his exciting new role in America, and can’t wait to get to work?
So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.
The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.
If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.
Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
Anwyay, as someone posted here yesterday, the MPC has 3 Hawks, 1 Dove, and the rest are neutral. They will not cut anytime soon. At the last meeting some voted for further increases.
Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.
TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.
My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.
Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.
This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm
I watched SPOTY last night and the BBC were clearly tipping the scale for Earps. The contrast was clearest when it came to discussing the respective Ashes and Women’s World Cup. The talk about the Ashes was mashed between the men’s and women’s series and the women’s series probably got more airtime. If you looked at how the BBC presented it, you wouldn’t have guessed 10% of the drama behind the Series.
Meanwhile, with the WWC, there was a clear, long narrative about England’s progress and how close they came. And, just in case you didn’t get the narrative, the Spanish team’s scandal was then brought in, even though it had sweet FA to do with things. Even my sister, who consistently talks about women’s football and watches the games, said “why are they mentioning that on here?”.
Earps may have won but she definitely wasn’t the best candidate. It should have gone to either Broad or KJT, both of whom had, in different ways, compelling stories, Broad for his long Test series and its end, KJT for her struggles and eventually victory. Earps seems to be nice enough and has had her own struggles but saving a penalty and sticking your tongue out shouldn’t mean you are a shoo-in for SPOTY.
NEW THREAD
It is on Youtube and was shown on the BBC in the late eighties.
Nairn may have been an old soak, but he liked Newcastle, so he cannot have been all bad.
The thing to remember about Portsmouth, especially Portsmouth North is that it's a bit of the northern Red Wall that broke off and got stuck back in the wrong place.
For a long time, the area was more Conservative than you might expect because of the navy and Labour being unsound on defence. Flipped to Labour in '97 and Mordaunt won it in 2010.
Pretty Brexitty, and Conservatives on the city council are increasingly squeezed out by Portsmouth Independents. Long story short, there's potential for it to swing far and fast.
Mordaunt should be OK, but she's not as safe as the bare figures suggest.
Some people who have been Conservatives all their lives, don’t want to follow a leader into a populist agenda, having to wage a woke war or defend Enoch Powell views.
Right wing populism isn’t British Conservatism, in fact it’s the enemy.
You lose a job interview in the first 10 seconds apparently. The Tories could lose the election after next in the first 10 months of a new leaders regime.