TLDR: December election (argues they won’t choose October as it’s the anniversary of the Trussmageddon), Labour landslide, Trump gets the Nom, Biden wins, Ukraine will struggle on, next New Year will look more precarious than this.
Credible all round, except possibly the election date. And I still think Trump may not make it to the Nom.
Credible all round except Alastair always thinks things will get worse and each year will be worse than the last.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
"real terms pay rises" - many folk have had a year or more of below real terms pay rises, even if 2023's inflation is mopre or less catered for.
You also forgot a dollop of inflation when Brexit is actually implemented for imports. Plus stuff no longer being available in the UK cos nobody CBA to import it as a result. Which will drive food prices up in times of shortage when other, more amenable, customers snaffle it all. That's most of a concern for European-grown stuff such as salads and veg, obviously, in times of bad weather, drought, etc.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Part 2: I expect Colorado and Maine to be joined this month by other states moving to exclude him from the ballot. These will create a need for the issue to be urgently reviewed by the Supreme Court. Controversially perhaps, I do not expect Trump to win on this issue. Two of the right-wing Supreme Court justices have already given judgments in their prior careers that have supported the rights of the individual states to decide how to best protect their ballots. I suspect they will go along with the similar notion - which will mean they will not interfere to put Trump back on the ballot. To do otherwise is going to require some considerable and obvious contortions.
I also expect Trump to fail in a case appealing the outcome in the senior court in Washington DC finding that Trump has no absolute Presidential immunity. Anything else would leave the US Constitution open to utter abuse by a future President, be that Trump or A N Other. Indeed, in the most extreme outcome, Biden could take Trump out and shoot him - and then claim that same immunity. Once Trump has no immunity, his actions on and in the run up to January 6th and the storming of Congress to prevent the certification of the 2000 election leave him very exposed. His co-conspirators have already started taking plea deals. Those deals require them to nail Trump.
He is an old man going to jail. Rightly so. You don't get to try to overthrow an election of the US people, shrug your shoulders and go "Oh well....".
2024 will be a cascading series of disasters for Trump, from which he is unable to escape. They will culminate with him being put in jail for many years. The Republican Party is just going to have to resolve the issue of Donald Trump as best they can. But he will not be their candidate.
It's possible - but he's not going to jail this side of the election. No trial is going to be done soon enough to allow for the three to four months any sentencing process will take.
Which would make things interesting, even if the GOP were to boot him as a candidate.
I know nothing but if he was convicted, would the judge really let him wander around freely pending sentencing? He has his own private jet and numerous friends in foreign governments and US border patrol, I think he'd be an obvious flight risk?
1. Labour's lead will drop to single figures by spring, as the Budget does its work and the search for reasons to dislike Starmer intensifies. 2. But it will then stabilise and Labour will win a comfortable overall majority, ca. 100. 3. LibDems will pick up quite a few Southern seats but otherwise make little progress. 4. Greens will end up with the same single seat. 5. Biden will win, more comfortably than most expect.
That would make the 'Labour majority' bet a screaming, trading lay...
"quite a few Southern seats" would suit the LibDems very nicely.
If they are honest it would suit *Labour* very nicely as well...
Strategically, you can argue it both ways.
If the Tories are only just short, it would certainly help Labour to make sure the Tories properly lose. Plus, history suggests that the bigger the loss, the greater the internal ructions that follow, the thinner the talent pool there is for the clawback, and the longer the opposing party will be out of power.
The LibDems can't use those southern seats to challenge Labour's majority and hence a dramatic Tory defeat could be in Labour's interests - as well as removing talented moderates like Hunt from the field.
On the other hand, we know that taking the long view it suits Labour to present British politics as a cosy two-party carve up, and to cling to the status quo voting system, which a large tranche of LibDems would call into question - maybe not right away, but the next time Labour falls short. LibDem MPs tend to stick around (barring some existential event like coalition).
On Hunt, he's irrelevant post-election. There's a fair chance he'll stand down anyway, but even if he doesn't and gets back in, he simply doesn't have a role in the Conservatives in opposition and will be swiftly be forgotten.
In terms of Lib Dems sticking around, whilst they have had some MPs with a good personal vote, I just don't think their longevity is supported by the stats.
Hunt is just an example.
Having broken through to a decent-sized parliamentary party under Ashdown in 1997, the LibDems broadly held that position through to 2014. Without the coalition they'd possibly be there, still.
The other factor I didn't mention in my OP is that a large group of LibDem MPs alongside a large group of Tories would mean Labour's legislation facing scrutiny, challenge and opposition from both a Daily Mail and Guardian perpective at the same time, as well as possibly from a decent remaining bunch of Scotsman readers. All my experience of Labour politicians is that they only ever see any value in opposition scrutiny and challenge when it's them that are doing it. And of course they;'d risk rebellions from both wings.
Does anyone still read the Scotsman? Maybe the Jack man at the Scottish Office?
Scotsman circ has crashed - 8.2K including subs and not coiunting freebies in first half of 2023. WAs almost twice that three years before.
PS Herald seems to be holding up a bit better buit I can't find the comparable data, just the previous half-year.
Slight feeling that both are relying on the funeral notice reader market.
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Belated New Year greetings to all (Hawaii reached 2024 about 40 minutes ago so that just leaves places like Baker Island still in 2023).
As those who've got the scars from following my racing selections can painfully attest, I struggle with what's going to happen this afternoon let alone weeks and months ahead.
2024 will no doubt have its share of surprises - most years do. In terms of the obvious, the problem Sunak has is trying to argue why anyone should vote Conservative based on the Party's record leading the Government since 2010. Starmer has the huge advantage of not having a record to defend and while, as some may argue, he lacks the charisma of Blair that may be no bad thing.
Assuming there's no GE on May 2nd, the locals won't be pleasant for the Conservatives and Sadiq Khan, will likely win his re-election for another term of irrelevance at City Hall.
The truth remains irrespective of what happens this year, many people just want to give the Conservative Party a kick in the majorities - now, some on here will argue that's irrational but that kind of pent up anger often is and once the kicking has happened, the Conservatives can start again but they can't avoid the kicking so the question is sooner or later?
I find America very hard to read - the economic picture looks good for Biden but I imagine it's the same old story of growth funded by borrowing which will come back to bite someone on the behind - it always does. It astonishes me how so many still sign up to this rather than seeking to manage the public finances properly. Biden may make the occasional gaffe but he remains the shrewdest politician in the room. I suspect he will run rings round Trump in the debates and eke out a second term (if we like pattern matching which I don't, think 1956 and Eisenhower's second win over Adlai Stevenson.
Sport is another mystery - I imagine Euro 2024 will be the usual mix of heady euphoria through the group stage and crushing disappointment in the quarter or semi finals. Cheltenham looks set for another round of Irish domination especially in the novice events while CITY OF TROY could be the "real deal" on the flat - we say this every year usually about a Ballydoyle colt.
On a personal note, I'm due to retire this year after being in continuous employment for 40 years. What retired life will be like I don't know - more time to comment on here, more time to do something useful. I'm told everything takes twice as long when you're retired so we'll see.
I wish you well in your retirement
I retired in 2009 and celebrated by going on an expedition ship to Antarctica, South Georgia, and the Falklands which added to our many travels since our eldest son emigrated to New Zealand in 2003, and then moved to Vancouver in 2015 when he married a Canadian
My wife and I have travelled the world and been to so many places we created a wealth of fantastic memories and now, when I am certainly not going to ever fly again and am awaiting a pacemaker, we have no regrets and are simply contented with our life and family, and so grateful for all our blessings
G my brother is getting his battery replaced in March , after 12 years, though I think nowadays they just change the whole unit. He said it was very simple job getting it fitted and they do a ereading each year to see if it has been activated etc at any point. Good luck and Best wishes for 2024
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
This 10 day break from work seems to have flown by. And I seem to have done very little by way of useful activity in that time. A few walks, a bit of reading, and a wizz round with the vacuum cleaner.
I won't predict, but I do hope that we see the back of this government. The sooner the better.
I think that NOM would be better for the country than a thumping Labour majority. In such circumstances, I would hope that the LibDems and SNP would keep Labour on a better track when it comes to environmental policies. Emissions reduction, habitat conservation and regeneration, animal welfare, etc. And I do hope that this bonkers idea of building New Towns is the first thing to be dumped.
TLDR: December election (argues they won’t choose October as it’s the anniversary of the Trussmageddon), Labour landslide, Trump gets the Nom, Biden wins, Ukraine will struggle on, next New Year will look more precarious than this.
Credible all round, except possibly the election date. And I still think Trump may not make it to the Nom.
Credible all round except Alastair always thinks things will get worse and each year will be worse than the last.
If you can tune that out he's brilliant.
Recently, that's been about the size of it. At least politically. And economically. And geopolitically. And environmentally.
I'm going to be quite contrarian on Trump. He will NOT be the Republican candidate in 2024.
This month is going to be personally traumatic for him. He is facing two judgments where he has already lost and the issue is damages to be awarded against him. The New York case has already found his businesses guilty of systemic fraud. The issue is the award to the state. This will be not less than $500m IMHO - and might easily be closer to a billion. Much as Trump will rail it is "the system out to get him", the message will start to sink in, the glitter rub off - he is a conman whose claims to be some great commercial mind will start to fall apart. This fall from grace argument is one the media loves to run with.(And there could still be more criminal charges in the fallout of this judgment.)
Trump will not be free to do business in New York. The judgment will be excoriating on his lack of credibility in his testimony and the sheer nastiness of the way he conducted himself. Trump will not remotely have the money to meet the judgment (and potential mega-donors will back off bankrolling him because the narrative against him has turned so negative). He will lodge appeals, but they will swiftly come to nothing. The fire sale of his assets will then start. We will see whether Mar-a-Lago is really worth the billion or billion and half Trump claims.
As well as his business court case, he is also going to see what the defamation judgment is going to cost him against E. Jean Carroll. It won't be the $148m Rudi Giuliani was hit with, but it will likely be tens of millions at the time the New York case has taken funds away. It will also remind the voters what a shit he is. Especially women voters.
Whilst some voters will stick with him, and despite these being civil cases and not a criminal, it will cause a material - 5%+ of his support - to back away and not return.
There are two ways Trump could react. He could rant and scream and in the process, look really quite deranged. Or he could be uncharacteristically silent.
However, these are just the personal life problems impinging on his persona projected to the voters. His bigger issues will be his political ones - staying on the ballot and maintaining his claim to absolute Presidential immunity for his actions relating to overthrow the 2000 election result.
I was fascinated just prior to Christmas to see the BBC referring to the E. Jean Carroll case as an "allegation".
A five fatality insurrection and an attempt at overthrowing the constitution, whilst the Vice President and the Leader of the House are almost lynched? Donald Trump, in BBC News land he's a bit of a tinker isn't he?
The BBC’s US reporting is somewhat eccentric - I would estimate that about 80% of US politicians they interview are Republicans. And they see Justin Webb as an expert on US politics.
Part 2: I expect Colorado and Maine to be joined this month by other states moving to exclude him from the ballot. These will create a need for the issue to be urgently reviewed by the Supreme Court. Controversially perhaps, I do not expect Trump to win on this issue. Two of the right-wing Supreme Court justices have already given judgments in their prior careers that have supported the rights of the individual states to decide how to best protect their ballots. I suspect they will go along with the similar notion - which will mean they will not interfere to put Trump back on the ballot. To do otherwise is going to require some considerable and obvious contortions.
I also expect Trump to fail in a case appealing the outcome in the senior court in Washington DC finding that Trump has no absolute Presidential immunity. Anything else would leave the US Constitution open to utter abuse by a future President, be that Trump or A N Other. Indeed, in the most extreme outcome, Biden could take Trump out and shoot him - and then claim that same immunity. Once Trump has no immunity, his actions on and in the run up to January 6th and the storming of Congress to prevent the certification of the 2000 election leave him very exposed. His co-conspirators have already started taking plea deals. Those deals require them to nail Trump.
He is an old man going to jail. Rightly so. You don't get to try to overthrow an election of the US people, shrug your shoulders and go "Oh well....".
2024 will be a cascading series of disasters for Trump, from which he is unable to escape. They will culminate with him being put in jail for many years. The Republican Party is just going to have to resolve the issue of Donald Trump as best they can. But he will not be their candidate.
A brave and clear prediction. Fair play to you for being bold.
I wish I had your faith that the american legal system can deliver in time to stop a Trump presidency. The other issue is what happens to civil order if he is barred by supreme court from running in a number of states?
Well, they have the advantage that, whereas the rioters last time naively thought that Trump's incitement would give them some kind of protection, the next lot know their likely fate, being able to see the ruined lives and long sentences dished out to some of the first lot.
In other news, if it looks like Labour will stroll it in England, it will likely reduce the pressure on Scots to abandon the SNP.
On the last point: SKS can't appeal in Scotland *and* England at the same time. It will be interesting to see how far the Scottish Labour Party also feel free to ignore party discipline.
He couldn't once but can now. In England he isn't a Tory and in Scotland he is a social democrat but not tarnished by corruption. Over 50% of Scots don't much want independence, and most scots are left of centre. Nowhere else to go.
last poll had it as 58% wanted it and rising, they are sick of the parasites in Westminster. For sure London Labour are not the answer for Scotland, will need a night of the long knoves and lots of hard work to get rid of the colonial carpetbaggers. People will not accept being a colony long term and it is getting worse with Jackboot Jack and his ilk..
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
Not least because HYUFD's criterion is only valid since 2015. 2010-15 wasn't a "one party" government: and he specified "longest continuous period in government of one party".
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
It's a mystery how they think any of this will lead to being viewed more sympathetically? Publicity just brings it to wider attention what shady dishonest greedy ****ers they both are.
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
For all the emotion and politics, this one is really simple contract law. What was purchased, on what terms, and at what price; what was delivered and when, and did it meet a quality standard specified in the contract?
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
Doug Barrowman should be in jail for the tax schemes he ran knowing that they would never work...
Belated New Year greetings to all (Hawaii reached 2024 about 40 minutes ago so that just leaves places like Baker Island still in 2023).
As those who've got the scars from following my racing selections can painfully attest, I struggle with what's going to happen this afternoon let alone weeks and months ahead.
2024 will no doubt have its share of surprises - most years do. In terms of the obvious, the problem Sunak has is trying to argue why anyone should vote Conservative based on the Party's record leading the Government since 2010. Starmer has the huge advantage of not having a record to defend and while, as some may argue, he lacks the charisma of Blair that may be no bad thing.
Assuming there's no GE on May 2nd, the locals won't be pleasant for the Conservatives and Sadiq Khan, will likely win his re-election for another term of irrelevance at City Hall.
The truth remains irrespective of what happens this year, many people just want to give the Conservative Party a kick in the majorities - now, some on here will argue that's irrational but that kind of pent up anger often is and once the kicking has happened, the Conservatives can start again but they can't avoid the kicking so the question is sooner or later?
I find America very hard to read - the economic picture looks good for Biden but I imagine it's the same old story of growth funded by borrowing which will come back to bite someone on the behind - it always does. It astonishes me how so many still sign up to this rather than seeking to manage the public finances properly. Biden may make the occasional gaffe but he remains the shrewdest politician in the room. I suspect he will run rings round Trump in the debates and eke out a second term (if we like pattern matching which I don't, think 1956 and Eisenhower's second win over Adlai Stevenson.
Sport is another mystery - I imagine Euro 2024 will be the usual mix of heady euphoria through the group stage and crushing disappointment in the quarter or semi finals. Cheltenham looks set for another round of Irish domination especially in the novice events while CITY OF TROY could be the "real deal" on the flat - we say this every year usually about a Ballydoyle colt.
On a personal note, I'm due to retire this year after being in continuous employment for 40 years. What retired life will be like I don't know - more time to comment on here, more time to do something useful. I'm told everything takes twice as long when you're retired so we'll see.
I wish you well in your retirement
I retired in 2009 and celebrated by going on an expedition ship to Antarctica, South Georgia, and the Falklands which added to our many travels since our eldest son emigrated to New Zealand in 2003, and then moved to Vancouver in 2015 when he married a Canadian
My wife and I have travelled the world and been to so many places we created a wealth of fantastic memories and now, when I am certainly not going to ever fly again and am awaiting a pacemaker, we have no regrets and are simply contented with our life and family, and so grateful for all our blessings
G my brother is getting his battery replaced in March , after 12 years, though I think nowadays they just change the whole unit. He said it was very simple job getting it fitted and they do a ereading each year to see if it has been activated etc at any point. Good luck and Best wishes for 2024
Thanks Malc and a happy new year to you and your family
It is clear I need the operation and the cardiologist did say it was urgent when he phoned me just after Christmas
He did say it would be done under local anaesthetic and that once fitted it would be regularly monitored and adjusted as necessary without any surgical intervention
My wife's 85 year old cousin in Lossiemouth has just had his replaced after 30 years, and my brother in law also had a pacemaker 4 weeks ago making it a family hat trick once I have mine
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
Not least because HYUFD's criterion is only valid since 2015. 2010-15 wasn't a "one party" government: and he specified "longest continuous period in government of one party".
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
The Tories were still in government from 2010 to 2015
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
For all the emotion and politics, this one is really simple contract law. What was purchased, on what terms, and at what price; what was delivered and when, and did it meet a quality standard specified in the contract?
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
I think the issue is the contracts were of the same quality as the procurement processes (i.e. absolutely non-existent and very much favouring the supplier).,
I'm going to be quite contrarian on Trump. He will NOT be the Republican candidate in 2024.
This month is going to be personally traumatic for him. He is facing two judgments where he has already lost and the issue is damages to be awarded against him. The New York case has already found his businesses guilty of systemic fraud. The issue is the award to the state. This will be not less than $500m IMHO - and might easily be closer to a billion. Much as Trump will rail it is "the system out to get him", the message will start to sink in, the glitter rub off - he is a conman whose claims to be some great commercial mind will start to fall apart. This fall from grace argument is one the media loves to run with.(And there could still be more criminal charges in the fallout of this judgment.)
Trump will not be free to do business in New York. The judgment will be excoriating on his lack of credibility in his testimony and the sheer nastiness of the way he conducted himself. Trump will not remotely have the money to meet the judgment (and potential mega-donors will back off bankrolling him because the narrative against him has turned so negative). He will lodge appeals, but they will swiftly come to nothing. The fire sale of his assets will then start. We will see whether Mar-a-Lago is really worth the billion or billion and half Trump claims.
As well as his business court case, he is also going to see what the defamation judgment is going to cost him against E. Jean Carroll. It won't be the $148m Rudi Giuliani was hit with, but it will likely be tens of millions at the time the New York case has taken funds away. It will also remind the voters what a shit he is. Especially women voters.
Whilst some voters will stick with him, and despite these being civil cases and not a criminal, it will cause a material - 5%+ of his support - to back away and not return.
There are two ways Trump could react. He could rant and scream and in the process, look really quite deranged. Or he could be uncharacteristically silent.
However, these are just the personal life problems impinging on his persona projected to the voters. His bigger issues will be his political ones - staying on the ballot and maintaining his claim to absolute Presidential immunity for his actions relating to overthrow the 2000 election result.
I was fascinated just prior to Christmas to see the BBC referring to the E. Jean Carroll case as an "allegation".
A five fatality insurrection and an attempt at overthrowing the constitution, whilst the Vice President and the Leader of the House are almost lynched? Donald Trump, in BBC News land he's a bit of a tinker isn't he?
The US courts have ruled that it’s not libellous to call Trump a rapist.
@viewcode I have just seen your post about your memories of the year and your comment on my posts about my (my wife's really) dog.
Thank you. That was very kind.
It isn't all glamour though. Yesterday he ate something very dead and furry (Don't know what as you can't catch him when he finds something as good as that). Later he threw up on the living room carpet.
Part 2: I expect Colorado and Maine to be joined this month by other states moving to exclude him from the ballot. These will create a need for the issue to be urgently reviewed by the Supreme Court. Controversially perhaps, I do not expect Trump to win on this issue. Two of the right-wing Supreme Court justices have already given judgments in their prior careers that have supported the rights of the individual states to decide how to best protect their ballots. I suspect they will go along with the similar notion - which will mean they will not interfere to put Trump back on the ballot. To do otherwise is going to require some considerable and obvious contortions.
I also expect Trump to fail in a case appealing the outcome in the senior court in Washington DC finding that Trump has no absolute Presidential immunity. Anything else would leave the US Constitution open to utter abuse by a future President, be that Trump or A N Other. Indeed, in the most extreme outcome, Biden could take Trump out and shoot him - and then claim that same immunity. Once Trump has no immunity, his actions on and in the run up to January 6th and the storming of Congress to prevent the certification of the 2000 election leave him very exposed. His co-conspirators have already started taking plea deals. Those deals require them to nail Trump.
He is an old man going to jail. Rightly so. You don't get to try to overthrow an election of the US people, shrug your shoulders and go "Oh well....".
2024 will be a cascading series of disasters for Trump, from which he is unable to escape. They will culminate with him being put in jail for many years. The Republican Party is just going to have to resolve the issue of Donald Trump as best they can. But he will not be their candidate.
A brave and clear prediction. Fair play to you for being bold.
I wish I had your faith that the american legal system can deliver in time to stop a Trump presidency. The other issue is what happens to civil order if he is barred by supreme court from running in a number of states?
Well, they have the advantage that, whereas the rioters last time naively thought that Trump's incitement would give them some kind of protection, the next lot know their likely fate, being able to see the ruined lives and long sentences dished out to some of the first lot.
In other news, if it looks like Labour will stroll it in England, it will likely reduce the pressure on Scots to abandon the SNP.
On the last point: SKS can't appeal in Scotland *and* England at the same time. It will be interesting to see how far the Scottish Labour Party also feel free to ignore party discipline.
He couldn't once but can now. In England he isn't a Tory and in Scotland he is a social democrat but not tarnished by corruption. Over 50% of Scots don't much want independence, and most scots are left of centre. Nowhere else to go.
last poll had it as 58% wanted it and rising, they are sick of the parasites in Westminster. For sure London Labour are not the answer for Scotland, will need a night of the long knoves and lots of hard work to get rid of the colonial carpetbaggers. People will not accept being a colony long term and it is getting worse with Jackboot Jack and his ilk..
Happy New Year malc , hope 2024 is a good one for you .
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Taking the view Trump won't be a thing by then...
I think Trump will be blocked from enough state ballots to fail to be GOP nominee, the SC leaving the states to decide, while remaining on enough state ballots to run as a third party candidate which he will.
We then head for a near re rerun of the 1912 presidential election when Democrat Wilson won with less than 45% of the vote, close to Biden's current approval rating, as the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee President Taft and former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate. Much as Trump would take votes from the official Republican nominee to re elect Biden by default
@viewcode I have just seen your post about your memories of the year and your comment on my posts about my (my wife's really) dog.
Thank you. That was very kind.
It isn't all glamour though. Yesterday he ate something very dead and furry (Don't know what as you can't catch him when he finds something as good as that). Later he threw up on the living room carpet.
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
If they win this time, under the conditions they find themselves going into GE2024, they likely as not win next time too. We are to all intents and purposes a one party state.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
For the US in particular there is now a strong partisan component to the "how is the economy doing" sentiment -- among Republicans the view on the state of the economy nosedived when Biden took office, and conversely Democratic opinions of it went up. So "Trump supporters think the economy isn't working for them" is not purely a "view on economy influences which politician they support" effect, but includes a component where cause and effect are the other way around.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Gloriously sunny in Stockport this lunchtime - will be strolling over with the boy to Edgeley to catch the top-of-the-table League 2 clash against Mansfield in a bit. I love New Year’s Day footy.
Re resolutions, I gave up my destructive drinking habit four days ago*, and (unrelated) handed in my membership of the Greens. Maybe I’ll return when they shed the Corbynista safety blanket and culture wars, and return to the crucial business of environmentalism.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Taking the view Trump won't be a thing by then...
I think Trump will be blocked from enough state ballots to fail to be GOP nominee, the SC leaving the states to decide, while remaining on enough state ballots to run as a third party candidate which he will.
We then head for a near re rerun of the 1912 presidential election when Democrat Wilson won with less than 45% of the vote, close to Biden's current approval rating, as the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee President Taft and former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate. Much as Trump would take votes from the official Republican nominee to re elect Biden by default
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
Not least because HYUFD's criterion is only valid since 2015. 2010-15 wasn't a "one party" government: and he specified "longest continuous period in government of one party".
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
The Tories were still in government from 2010 to 2015
But only as part of a Coalition.
If Cameron had been in power with a majority, I suspect we would have had a referendum on the EU before 2015.
Which he would have won.
It was the LibDems being part of Government that insisted he blocked it.
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
If they win this time, under the conditions they find themselves going into GE2024, they likely as not win next time too. We are to all intents and purposes a one party state.
Not really, if Rishi wins this year after 14 years of Tory government against the odds it would be much like Major's shock 1992 re election after 13 years of Tory government which also was expected to lead to near permanent Tory government.
However we all know what happened in 1997. If Starmer did somehow end up Kinnock 2 and lose a seemingly unloseable general election after a long period of the Tories in government and an economy in difficulties then Labour would probably replace him with Streeting who would go even further than Starmer has in a New Labour, Blairite direction. Remember while Starmer is not really a socialist in the mould of Corbyn or Foot at heart he is still at least a social democrat like Kinnock or John Smith or Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown than a full on Blairite
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
If they win this time, under the conditions they find themselves going into GE2024, they likely as not win next time too. We are to all intents and purposes a one party state.
This is nonsense Pete. Labour will win when it represents the British public and what they want and need from a party of government. I feel they have already done that but if they don't succeed they will re-shape and try again. We're not a one party state, we just have one party that wins lots of elections and one that likes to protest a lot.
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
Not least because HYUFD's criterion is only valid since 2015. 2010-15 wasn't a "one party" government: and he specified "longest continuous period in government of one party".
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
The Tories were still in government from 2010 to 2015
But only as part of a Coalition.
If Cameron had been in power with a majority, I suspect we would have had a referendum on the EU before 2015.
Which he would have won.
It was the LibDems being part of Government that insisted he blocked it.
Why do you think Cameron would have won a referendum earlier than 2016?
Mr. Ninja, though he couldn't've known it, Cameron picked the worst time for a referendum as fears over mass migration (turbocharged by Merkel's idiotic approach) were at their zenith.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
For all the emotion and politics, this one is really simple contract law. What was purchased, on what terms, and at what price; what was delivered and when, and did it meet a quality standard specified in the contract?
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
Was, and this might be oversimplifying it all a bit - Mone/Barrowman's operation a marked up AliExpress drop ship job ?
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
True, but of course odd as in 2006 we didn't go around with no shoes eating gruel and drinking out of uncovered drains while rats, wolves and feral children wandered the derelict high streets. We were, on the whole, as rich as Croesus then, as we are now.
Mr. Ninja, though he couldn't've known it, Cameron picked the worst time for a referendum as fears over mass migration (turbocharged by Merkel's idiotic approach) were at their zenith.
Cameron's poor judgement is legendary: after all, he thought Michelle Mone was a suitable candidate for the House of Lords.
In the unlikely event Sunak wins the next general election the Tories could potentially be in government for 19 years.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
Wow, that 'unlikely' is bending under the strain...
Not least because HYUFD's criterion is only valid since 2015. 2010-15 wasn't a "one party" government: and he specified "longest continuous period in government of one party".
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
The Tories were still in government from 2010 to 2015
But only as part of a Coalition.
If Cameron had been in power with a majority, I suspect we would have had a referendum on the EU before 2015.
Which he would have won.
It was the LibDems being part of Government that insisted he blocked it.
Why do you think Cameron would have won a referendum earlier than 2016?
He would have won it any time easily if there were both and honest and visionary campaign together with some intelligence in derogations from the EU.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Taking the view Trump won't be a thing by then...
I think Trump will be blocked from enough state ballots to fail to be GOP nominee, the SC leaving the states to decide, while remaining on enough state ballots to run as a third party candidate which he will.
We then head for a near re rerun of the 1912 presidential election when Democrat Wilson won with less than 45% of the vote, close to Biden's current approval rating, as the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee President Taft and former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate. Much as Trump would take votes from the official Republican nominee to re elect Biden by default
Much to like in that post!
Apart from the legal analysis.
I think it almost impossible that the SC will just ‘leave it to the states’. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is their jurisdiction, not that of the states. Declining to take the case would be a complete abdication of their responsibility, and if they take it up they will at the very least have to say something about the scope of the powers to exclude individuals.
They may still say that states can make decisions, but they will still have to rule on the (deeply contested) basis on which such decisions can be taken.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
True, but of course odd as in 2006 we didn't go around with no shoes eating gruel and drinking out of uncovered drains while rats, wolves and feral children wandered the derelict high streets. We were, on the whole, as rich as Croesus then, as we are now.
Except some of our agreeable lifestyle in 2006 was based on borrowing from the future. Both actual borrowing and metaphorical borrowing (not spending enough on maintaining and upgrading infrastructure). Nothing inherently wrong with that- things ought to be cheaper and better in the future and future us ought to have a better ability to pay.
Trouble is, that future has arrived, the bills are landing and we're not in a better position to pay them.
Plus the whole averages cover winners and losers thing.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
True, but of course odd as in 2006 we didn't go around with no shoes eating gruel and drinking out of uncovered drains while rats, wolves and feral children wandered the derelict high streets. We were, on the whole, as rich as Croesus then, as we are now.
That is a very good point, which begs the question why do we constantly strive for growth, tax-cuts and cost-savings in public services?
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
For all the emotion and politics, this one is really simple contract law. What was purchased, on what terms, and at what price; what was delivered and when, and did it meet a quality standard specified in the contract?
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
I think the issue is the contracts were of the same quality as the procurement processes (i.e. absolutely non-existent and very much favouring the supplier).,
Yes I’d think so, which is why I disagree with the crap being thrown at the suppliers. It was a rare global emergency, and necessary equipment was in short supply everywhere.
Michelle Mone's husband Barrowman has issued a "statement" this morning after @thetimes report showing the National Crime Agency is investigating a £3 million payment into Mone's Coutts bank account, which would prove her direct benefit from the PPE Medpro contract as well as indirectly through trusts.
The statement is full of "look over there", fundamental lies (we saved the govt £100 million - they didn't) & obfuscation. Who'd have thought it?
Obfuscation is where he doesn't mention that he didn't declare his interest on company filings- nowhere on the Companies House declarations at the time.
She didn't declare her interest on official documents, she lied consistently (par for the course), threatened press with libel, lied to her lawyers, lied about her lawyers "they told me to lie" - they didn't.
Now their defence about getting £65 million profit and pandemic profiteering is saying "I'm not the only one who robbed the public, they're picking on me, it's not fair"
There is so much which needs to be investigated with other companies too. We've been saying this for a long time.
@RachelReevesMP has promised a Covid CORRUPTION Commissioner to investigate them if Labour win the next election.
More to follow with data.....
Don't forget to follow "The VIP Files" with @GoodLawProject and [me] here.
We have access to huge amounts of data through FOIs and are putting it together about numerous contracts given through the infamous VIP Lane.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
True, but of course odd as in 2006 we didn't go around with no shoes eating gruel and drinking out of uncovered drains while rats, wolves and feral children wandered the derelict high streets. We were, on the whole, as rich as Croesus then, as we are now.
That is a very good point, which begs the question why do we constantly strive for growth, tax-cuts and cost-savings in public services?
We've never had it so good but we've never been so miserable.
Jeez. Early Jan is meant to be the cool unhumid season in Bangers
SCORCHIO
You won't feel it inside an air conditioned knocking shop.
I am a reformed character. I only go to massage parlours now
Seriously this heat is a bit mad for early Jan. I can remember being here at this time of year and it getting so cold at night - about 13C - people gathered around braziers, like striking British Leyland workers in 1975
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
For all the emotion and politics, this one is really simple contract law. What was purchased, on what terms, and at what price; what was delivered and when, and did it meet a quality standard specified in the contract?
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
Was, and this might be oversimplifying it all a bit - Mone/Barrowman's operation a marked up AliExpress drop ship job ?
AIUI it was a bit more than that, a supplier known to Mone’s company made a run of gowns instead of bras.
There were definitely some people who simply went to AliExpress though, with very variable results in terms of delivery and quality.
Here are my predictions for the Big 2 political betting events of 2024: Our election will be in Q4, Labour with a 3 digit majority. The next US president won't be Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Esp not Trump. That's not happening.
Sunak's new year message includes the statement: "We're going further to grow our economy by reducing debt,....." -How can an intelligent fellow say that when the UK is running a deficit?
Because politicians assume people don’t understand the difference between debt and deficit, or they think that an obscure statistic such as net debt/GDP ratio falling, allows them to fudge success from failure.
Cameron and Osborne always used to grate when talking about “Paying down the deficit”, as did Brown when talking about “Prudence” when running an increasing deficit in boom times.
What’s really annoying is that these politicians all understand economics and maths; they’re not mis-speaking, they’re deliberately lying.
To reduce the debt (in real terms) the deficit has to be lower than inflation.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
As will longtime Labour voters who sat 2019 out (and who can blame them?) deciding that there's not much in the telly that evening.
I believe I predicted this on here. Passports are disappearing - so you can say goodbye to post Brexit queues - indeed you can say goodbye to all queues at borders
You will be facially scanned as you disembark and you won’t even be aware of it. Villainous types will be spotted and collared, everyone else will breeze through
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
True, but of course odd as in 2006 we didn't go around with no shoes eating gruel and drinking out of uncovered drains while rats, wolves and feral children wandered the derelict high streets. We were, on the whole, as rich as Croesus then, as we are now.
That is a very good point, which begs the question why do we constantly strive for growth, tax-cuts and cost-savings in public services?
The honest answer is that we are ruled by the wealthy who consider the population to be a resource to be used, not people to be served. In this structure Rishi is not just competing with Starmer for power, he is competing with Meloni, Modi et al to grow their resource more. That is why he is putting us to the flame: he's competing with his peers. His peers do not include you. You are a thing to him to be used to impress his friends.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
The idea that Sunak hangs on to "get economic benefits into people's pockets" is interesting. A few buckets: taxes, bills, inflation, and *other*.
Taxes: Despite daft Tory claims they're the highest they have been. And services are crumbling due to being starved of cash. They rushed through the NI cut to reduce the peak of their tax rise, they're rushing a budget which supposedly goes the full Truss, so there is a momentum building to cut and run.
Bills: My mortgage goes up £250 a month in February. A small reduction in fuel bills won't negate that. Especially as they won't be able to restrain themselves trying to claim bills are falling.
Inflation: Its falling, and that is a Good Thing. But Sunak is now saying prices are falling - which is stupid. I can't help feeling the Tories will want to push hard on this "cut". But in the real world where the voters aren't as stupid as Tories think, it isn't a cut. Prices are sky high and they are staying there.
Other: The Tories are likely to get a punishment beating in May's locals. That loosens whatever hold Sunak may have been able to get on the party. Throw in Rwanda being buried and another big increase in small boats and the polls not swinging and the doomed will be agitating.
It is a deluded read of reality which suggests all will be good in 2024 so go long.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
And that's why Andy_Cooke's comment is correct - if half your vote has disappeared and a large amount of the other 50% aren't bothered to actually find their ID and go out to vote (that finding the ID is likely a key demotivater here) then any result is possible for the Tories.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
From the link: "Nominal pay growth is now slowing, but inflation has been falling faster. So real pay growth has returned: the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects real earnings to grow by just shy of 1 per cent over 2024."
And there we have it. Real wage growth will in fact be 3 or possibly even 4 times faster than that. Nominal wages are currently growing about 7%. That will moderate but a lot of people, not just junior doctors, think that there is a lot of catching up to do. Wage growth will come down to maybe 5% which means it will grow in real terms by something like 3% over the year. Which will drive consumption. Which will increase demand. Which will lead to higher growth than currently forecast.
But it is very, very unlikely to lead to a whole heap of gratitude to the Tories. But the Tories will dream that it might so they will go longer. Which is why I chose November.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
I don't think so myself. They are the ones who always turn out. The DNV who turned out for the first time in 2019 for the Tories will quite likely revert to old habits.
The election is absolutely going to be in October or November. All of this talk of May is nonsense. The government will want whatever tax cuts they are pushing through in March to land in people's pay for a significant amount of time, for interest rates to be falling with inflation to be at or below 2% and for petrol prices to have stabilised at 125p - 130p. All of those will happen after the summer, not before. In addition waiting until October or November will mean people will have had a year's worth of real terms pay rises, they will feel much better off in November than they will in May, especially with mortgage rates dropping below 4% already.
I think you'll probably be right (November or December) unless the budget falls. The way they're trailing the budget already with hints at big tax cuts could lead to a VoNC if done wrong
STimes says Sunak's chief strategist has circled November in his diary.
Going up against a Trump campaign in the US would be brave. Every time he says something weird or offensive the Tories will be asked whether they agree or condemn him.
Taking the view Trump won't be a thing by then...
I think Trump will be blocked from enough state ballots to fail to be GOP nominee, the SC leaving the states to decide, while remaining on enough state ballots to run as a third party candidate which he will.
We then head for a near re rerun of the 1912 presidential election when Democrat Wilson won with less than 45% of the vote, close to Biden's current approval rating, as the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee President Taft and former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate. Much as Trump would take votes from the official Republican nominee to re elect Biden by default
Possible, I suppose. However, I think it would require significantly more States to remove him and these need to be 1. Large enough to have enough electoral votes to make a difference 2. Winnable by the Republicans - e.g. if California removed Trump it would likely make no difference
Then bear in mind that if say Texas removed Trump and it was won by Haley (or a Trump stooge, Cruz?), but the result had Trump close to Biden in electoral votes with Haley/Cruz a distant third, those Texas electors could just cast their votes for Trump. They aren't bound to the winner of their State, they can do whatever they want with their electoral vote.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
Yes, a government that mandates spending of £250k per head (in effect) for the upbringing of certain disadvantaged children is not exactly making people into soap.
The gap between the perceptions, rhetoric and reality is fascinating.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
From the link: "Nominal pay growth is now slowing, but inflation has been falling faster. So real pay growth has returned: the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects real earnings to grow by just shy of 1 per cent over 2024."
And there we have it. Real wage growth will in fact be 3 or possibly even 4 times faster than that. Nominal wages are currently growing about 7%. That will moderate but a lot of people, not just junior doctors, think that there is a lot of catching up to do. Wage growth will come down to maybe 5% which means it will grow in real terms by something like 3% over the year. Which will drive consumption. Which will increase demand. Which will lead to higher growth than currently forecast.
But it is very, very unlikely to lead to a whole heap of gratitude to the Tories. But the Tories will dream that it might so they will go longer. Which is why I chose November.
Real wage growth will be much higher than forecast in 2024.
Where I think that some of the US predictions fall down is believing in the fundamental decency of human nature. The SCOTUS judges will do the decent thing and stop Trump from running, and/or his voters will turn away from him in disgust.
I don't think that will happen. I think that Trump, as a candidate, will gain Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which gives 264 seats in the Electoral College. Biden may just eke out a win, but he's just one mid-size State away from defeat.
The Trump phenomenon affirms this view. The Economist says 30% of Americans believe he is appointed by God, including vast numbers of self styled Evangelicals. I am not Evangelical but it makes be grateful for the UK sort - who run foodbanks and Christians Against Poverty etc, and mostly vote LD and think Jesus was basically a good chap.
There are true believers in Trump, and others who can rationalise their reasons for supporting him, but which basically come down to "he may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." Between them, these groups make up almost 50% of US voters.
The US is probably the most polarised of all Western countries, but the same effects are also being seen elsewhere. For tens of millions of Americans, the Dream isn’t working, and politicians saying they’ve never had it so good only makes things worse.
I’ll stand by my central prediction for 2024, that incumbency is going to be a massive disadvantage for all Western politicians, simply because most people think things are getting worse no matter what the official statistics tell them.
Is it perhaps particularly inflation that people don’t like? Whatever other official statistics say, inflation is the one you notice at the personal level?
Inflation is definitely a big part of it, but also that the official inflation rate doesn’t represent most people’s experience of inflation.
Big-ticket household spending items such as housing, utility bills, and food, have all been running way above the official inflation rate. Someone whose £250k mortgage just went from a £1,500 a month fix to £3,000 a month, is screwed no matter how much their pay went up.
That's the issue with "interest rates will come down" as a bit of Conservative Cope. For people who have fixed rate mortgages (what's the proportion?) being renewed this year, it's going to be less bad than it could have been, but not good.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
From the link: "Nominal pay growth is now slowing, but inflation has been falling faster. So real pay growth has returned: the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects real earnings to grow by just shy of 1 per cent over 2024."
And there we have it. Real wage growth will in fact be 3 or possibly even 4 times faster than that. Nominal wages are currently growing about 7%. That will moderate but a lot of people, not just junior doctors, think that there is a lot of catching up to do. Wage growth will come down to maybe 5% which means it will grow in real terms by something like 3% over the year. Which will drive consumption. Which will increase demand. Which will lead to higher growth than currently forecast.
But it is very, very unlikely to lead to a whole heap of gratitude to the Tories. But the Tories will dream that it might so they will go longer. Which is why I chose November.
Real wage growth will be much higher than forecast in 2024.
That's what I said Sean. But the increased tax drag combined with higher mortgages for many means that they will not feel it and the Tories still get slaughtered.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
I don't think so myself. They are the ones who always turn out. The DNV who turned out for the first time in 2019 for the Tories will quite likely revert to old habits.
I think a chunk of the “outer core” Tory vote will sit it out. The 25% types will vote Conservative.
I believe I predicted this on here. Passports are disappearing - so you can say goodbye to post Brexit queues - indeed you can say goodbye to all queues at borders
You will be facially scanned as you disembark and you won’t even be aware of it. Villainous types will be spotted and collared, everyone else will breeze through
It's nearly 10 years since I breezed into Australia past a face recognition gizmo. Meanwhile the USA still insists on capturing my fingerprints every bloody time.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The Fascist efficiency thing was largely from Hitler and Co. riding the exit from the depression in Germany on a tidal wave of borrowed/faked up money for rearmament. That, and the fact that the French Army had carefully learnt all the wrong lessons from WWI.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
I note that the TwiX account you ardently follow is a militant Sinn Fein lesbian green Hamas-adjacent trans-rights activist
And you wonder why SNP style scotch nationalism is losing its purchase on the Scottish people
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
Yes, a government that mandates spending of £250k per head (in effect) for the upbringing of certain disadvantaged children is not exactly making people into soap.
The gap between the perceptions, rhetoric and reality is fascinating.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The Fascist efficiency thing was largely from Hitler and Co. riding the exit from the depression in Germany on a tidal wave of borrowed/faked up money for rearmament. That, and the fact that the French Army had carefully learnt all the wrong lessons from WWI.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
I read somewhere that Mussolini didn’t even make the trains run on time.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
I note that the TwiX account you ardently follow is a militant Sinn Fein lesbian green Hamas-adjacent trans-rights activist
And you wonder why SNP style scotch nationalism is losing its purchase on the Scottish people
As it happens I don't follow that account ardently or otherwise, you histrionic twit. Another fail for gumshoe Leon.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The Fascist efficiency thing was largely from Hitler and Co. riding the exit from the depression in Germany on a tidal wave of borrowed/faked up money for rearmament. That, and the fact that the French Army had carefully learnt all the wrong lessons from WWI.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
Mussolini’s reputation for slapping Italy into shape is not entirely unmerited
Eg he’s virtually the only Italian leader since the 19th century to convincingly crush organised crime. He did it by jailing beating and killing quite a few people - but he did it
Then the Americans invaded Sicily and recruited the mafia to help them
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The Fascist efficiency thing was largely from Hitler and Co. riding the exit from the depression in Germany on a tidal wave of borrowed/faked up money for rearmament. That, and the fact that the French Army had carefully learnt all the wrong lessons from WWI.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
I read somewhere that Mussolini didn’t even make the trains run on time.
Yes, according to the British ambassador in Italy the Italians -
1) Set aside track, masses of spare coaches and engines, all to get a few express services to run on time 2) this caused massive disruption for the rest of the railway system. 3) so after a short while, they reverted to normal operation. And ordered the newspapers to lie about the punctuality.
Who actually, honestly believes this is an “extreme right wing government”??!
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
I guess Fascism has a (probably undeserved) reputation for brutal efficiency, at least to start with, so these guys certainly aint close to that.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The Fascist efficiency thing was largely from Hitler and Co. riding the exit from the depression in Germany on a tidal wave of borrowed/faked up money for rearmament. That, and the fact that the French Army had carefully learnt all the wrong lessons from WWI.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
Mussolini’s reputation for slapping Italy into shape is not entirely unmerited
Eg he’s virtually the only Italian leader since the 19th century to convincingly crush organised crime. He did it by jailing beating and killing quite a few people - but he did it
Then the Americans invaded Sicily and recruited the mafia to help them
The suppression of the Mafia was about as real as the railways running on time. More a case of Thieves By Statute.
I tend to try to avoid predictions, but I will just observe that with FPTP, the prospect of tactical voting and a Reform spoiler (even if the latter will likely be significantly smaller than opinion polls say, in my opinion), the distribution of seats for the Tories will have a fatter tail downwards than we'll instinctively assume.
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
I think Tory voters staying at home will be a significant factor.
I don't think so myself. They are the ones who always turn out. The DNV who turned out for the first time in 2019 for the Tories will quite likely revert to old habits.
But they didn't turn out in 1997 and I expect the same this year. Especially if it's an Autumn election because the local Tory former councillors won't be doing anything to get the vote out.
Which is why a May election would be the sane option for the Tories - I don't see any upside in waiting longer..
Comments
If you can tune that out he's brilliant.
You also forgot a dollop of inflation when Brexit is actually implemented for imports. Plus stuff no longer being available in the UK cos nobody CBA to import it as a result. Which will drive food prices up in times of shortage when other, more amenable, customers snaffle it all. That's most of a concern for European-grown stuff such as salads and veg, obviously, in times of bad weather, drought, etc.
A few nice bottles incoming from Sunak clinging on, and there having been no GE yet
PS Herald seems to be holding up a bit better buit I can't find the comparable data, just the previous half-year.
Slight feeling that both are relying on the funeral notice reader market.
That would be the longest continuous period in government of one party since the Tory government of 1807 to 1830 which was dominated by the premiership of the Earl of Liverpool. However that was even before the 1832 Reform Act and at a time when only the richest 5% of the population could vote (if that was still the franchise even Rishi might have a chance of re election!)
I won't predict, but I do hope that we see the back of this government. The sooner the better.
I think that NOM would be better for the country than a thumping Labour majority. In such circumstances, I would hope that the LibDems and SNP would keep Labour on a better track when it comes to environmental policies. Emissions reduction, habitat conservation and regeneration, animal welfare, etc. And I do hope that this bonkers idea of building New Towns is the first thing to be dumped.
And they see Justin Webb as an expert on US politics.
'Barrowman went on to call for the resignation of Sir Chris Wormald, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, alleging that the DHSC took its action against the couple at a time when it was under increased scrutiny over how much it had “overspent” and why it had written off PPE.
“Michelle and I are being hung out to dry to distract attention from government incompetence in how it handled PPE procurement at [a] time of national emergency.”
The couple had attempted to settle the dispute numerous times and had been told to increase the figure before the government were prepared to “call the dogs off”, Barrowman said, using a phrase that he suggested had been used to describe the NCA investigation.'
I look forward to HYUFD's analysis of the possibility of a Plaid Cymru administration at Westminster.
I can also well imagine the Cabinet meeting in March 2020, where someone said something along the lines of “Does anyone know anyone who knows anyone, who can get hold of this stuff at any price?”
Obviously the government should be actively clawing back money paid to suppliers for goods not delivered.
It is clear I need the operation and the cardiologist did say it was urgent when he phoned me just after Christmas
He did say it would be done under local anaesthetic and that once fitted it would be regularly monitored and adjusted as necessary without any surgical intervention
My wife's 85 year old cousin in Lossiemouth has just had his replaced after 30 years, and my brother in law also had a pacemaker 4 weeks ago making it a family hat trick once I have mine
Thank you. That was very kind.
It isn't all glamour though. Yesterday he ate something very dead and furry (Don't know what as you can't catch him when he finds something as good as that). Later he threw up on the living room carpet.
We then head for a near re rerun of the 1912 presidential election when Democrat Wilson won with less than 45% of the vote, close to Biden's current approval rating, as the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee President Taft and former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate. Much as Trump would take votes from the official Republican nominee to re elect Biden by default
12.55 Cheltenham - Full Of Light
2.05 Cheltenham - Stage Star
2.40 - Cheltenham - The Newest One
3.15 Cheltenham - Marie’s Rock
For those paying attention, yes indeed I am tipping a 100-1 winner for the 12.55. 🐎
Re resolutions, I gave up my destructive drinking habit four days ago*, and (unrelated) handed in my membership of the Greens. Maybe I’ll return when they shed the Corbynista safety blanket and culture wars, and return to the crucial business of environmentalism.
*the aim is for a permanent end.
As things stand, this year has the potential to be not so bad for the comfortable but blooming awful for the less well off. (Even the shift to lower tax rates on lower thresholds plays into this.)
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/from-merry-christmas-to-a-messy-new-year/
If Cameron had been in power with a majority, I suspect we would have had a referendum on the EU before 2015.
Which he would have won.
It was the LibDems being part of Government that insisted he blocked it.
However we all know what happened in 1997. If Starmer did somehow end up Kinnock 2 and lose a seemingly unloseable general election after a long period of the Tories in government and an economy in difficulties then Labour would probably replace him with Streeting who would go even further than Starmer has in a New Labour, Blairite direction. Remember while Starmer is not really a socialist in the mould of Corbyn or Foot at heart he is still at least a social democrat like Kinnock or John Smith or Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown than a full on Blairite
Mr. Ninja, though he couldn't've known it, Cameron picked the worst time for a referendum as fears over mass migration (turbocharged by Merkel's idiotic approach) were at their zenith.
For once the figures reflect what people feel.
I think it almost impossible that the SC will just ‘leave it to the states’. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is their jurisdiction, not that of the states. Declining to take the case would be a complete abdication of their responsibility, and if they take it up they will at the very least have to say something about the scope of the powers to exclude individuals.
They may still say that states can make decisions, but they will still have to rule on the (deeply contested) basis on which such decisions can be taken.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/world/americas/cat-prison-chile.html
Trouble is, that future has arrived, the bills are landing and we're not in a better position to pay them.
Plus the whole averages cover winners and losers thing.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02y4nxdPTKmC3jm8Q181fzoJSoW41kgVpzgBUs1CJeDsiJ7Qz4gNr5t2cMdyrVQgWNl&id=100057284957904
That's because FPTP is decidedly non-linear in its effects, especially as swings become larger, and we default to linear thinking (and status quo bias). So if our instincts point to c. 160-190 seats for the Tories with a mental margin of -15 or so below and +35 or so above (so we'll think the "extreme" results would still be in the range 145-225 seats), we'll actually be off-base on the downside plausible range (as well as, to a lesser extent, the upside plausible range).
Once you get into the twenties of percentage points, FPTP can be bloody brutal. Especially if voters are trying to work out whoever is best placed to beat you (tactical voting) and/or there are options on your side of the spectrum (Reform).
Labour would be largely best placed to benefit from this - IF it happens. LDs also (a bit like 1997, but could be even better - IF they're lucky and we do end up in that fat tail area). Reform will STILL be unlikely to pick up seats - maybe one if they're very lucky (even if they end up running the LDs close on vote share, because a diffuse vote share gets nothing under FPTP, while a smaller but very clumpy one can rake it in).
I think an existential disaster is still unlikely for the Tories. It's just that I think it's shifted along the scale from "practically impossible" past "implausible" and even "highly unlikely" to simply "unlikely."
SCORCHIO
The statement is full of "look over there", fundamental lies (we saved the govt £100 million - they didn't) & obfuscation. Who'd have thought it?
Obfuscation is where he doesn't mention that he didn't declare his interest on company filings- nowhere on the Companies House declarations at the time.
She didn't declare her interest on official documents, she lied consistently (par for the course), threatened press with libel, lied to her lawyers, lied about her lawyers "they told me to lie" - they didn't.
Now their defence about getting £65 million profit and pandemic profiteering is saying
"I'm not the only one who robbed the public, they're picking on me, it's not fair"
There is so much which needs to be investigated with other companies too. We've been saying this for a long time.
@RachelReevesMP has promised a Covid CORRUPTION Commissioner to investigate them if Labour win the next election.
More to follow with data.....
Don't forget to follow "The VIP Files" with @GoodLawProject and [me] here.
We have access to huge amounts of data through FOIs and are putting it together about numerous contracts given through the infamous VIP Lane.
It's a Tory mess which stinks and they're still trying to hide a lot of the evidence.
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1741770808685416888
Vorders unimpressed by this morning's statement on Michele Mone's PPE outfit. There's a video at the link.
Seriously this heat is a bit mad for early Jan. I can remember being here at this time of year and it getting so cold at night - about 13C - people gathered around braziers, like striking British Leyland workers in 1975
There are few finer places. I may stroll out in my linen shirt for a gin in the dulcet warmth
There were definitely some people who simply went to AliExpress though, with very variable results in terms of delivery and quality.
HNY to all, may it be your best ever.
https://x.com/ClaireMullaly/status/1741442010865717358?s=20
You will be facially scanned as you disembark and you won’t even be aware of it. Villainous types will be spotted and collared, everyone else will breeze through
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/01/facial-recognition-could-replace-passports-at-uk-airport-e-gates
They’ll have a bit of a shock if we ever actually get some fascists in power (ins’allah)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-and-ireland-ranked-worlds-best-at-eating-fruit-and-vegetables-dxcc7n3xq (£££)
In hindsight there are other reasons why he should have won.
Taxes: Despite daft Tory claims they're the highest they have been. And services are crumbling due to being starved of cash. They rushed through the NI cut to reduce the peak of their tax rise, they're rushing a budget which supposedly goes the full Truss, so there is a momentum building to cut and run.
Bills: My mortgage goes up £250 a month in February. A small reduction in fuel bills won't negate that. Especially as they won't be able to restrain themselves trying to claim bills are falling.
Inflation: Its falling, and that is a Good Thing. But Sunak is now saying prices are falling - which is stupid. I can't help feeling the Tories will want to push hard on this "cut". But in the real world where the voters aren't as stupid as Tories think, it isn't a cut. Prices are sky high and they are staying there.
Other: The Tories are likely to get a punishment beating in May's locals. That loosens whatever hold Sunak may have been able to get on the party. Throw in Rwanda being buried and another big increase in small boats and the polls not swinging and the doomed will be agitating.
It is a deluded read of reality which suggests all will be good in 2024 so go long.
And there we have it. Real wage growth will in fact be 3 or possibly even 4 times faster than that. Nominal wages are currently growing about 7%. That will moderate but a lot of people, not just junior doctors, think that there is a lot of catching up to do. Wage growth will come down to maybe 5% which means it will grow in real terms by something like 3% over the year. Which will drive consumption. Which will increase demand. Which will lead to higher growth than currently forecast.
But it is very, very unlikely to lead to a whole heap of gratitude to the Tories. But the Tories will dream that it might so they will go longer. Which is why I chose November.
However, I think it would require significantly more States to remove him and these need to be
1. Large enough to have enough electoral votes to make a difference
2. Winnable by the Republicans - e.g. if California removed Trump it would likely make no difference
Then bear in mind that if say Texas removed Trump and it was won by Haley (or a Trump stooge, Cruz?), but the result had Trump close to Biden in electoral votes with Haley/Cruz a distant third, those Texas electors could just cast their votes for Trump. They aren't bound to the winner of their State, they can do whatever they want with their electoral vote.
The gap between the perceptions, rhetoric and reality is fascinating.
One entirely unshocking thing in the event of Strong Man X seizing the reins of power over the bloodied corpses of the woke would be you wanking yourself to death.
The current government doesn’t have fascist aspirations. Anymore than the SNP does in Scotland or Labour does in Wales.
And you wonder why SNP style scotch nationalism is losing its purchase on the Scottish people
Another fail for gumshoe Leon.
Eg he’s virtually the only Italian leader since the 19th century to convincingly crush organised crime. He did it by jailing beating and killing quite a few people - but he did it
Then the Americans invaded Sicily and recruited the mafia to help them
1) Set aside track, masses of spare coaches and engines, all to get a few express services to run on time
2) this caused massive disruption for the rest of the railway system.
3) so after a short while, they reverted to normal operation. And ordered the newspapers to lie about the punctuality.
Sums up fascism in Italy quite neatly, really.
Which is why a May election would be the sane option for the Tories - I don't see any upside in waiting longer..