Korea unveils plan to build $472 bil. mega chip cluster in Gyeonggi Province https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366948 Korea will build the world's biggest semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province by 2047 as Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and other chip companies plan to invest a total of 622 trillion won ($472 billion) to build 16 new fabs, creating more than 3 million jobs, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Monday.
By expanding the existing mega cluster with 19 production fabs and two research fabs across adjoining cities in the province, the new mega chip cluster spanning 2,102* square meters will produce 7.7 million wafers each month starting in 2030...
While not good for the Conservatives, 169 seats would still be slightly more than the 165 Tory seats Major won in 1997 and the 166 seats Hague won in 2001. 385 seats, while excellent for Starmer, would also not match the over 400 seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001
With all this MRP excitement it is easy to forget that today is Caucus Day.
"The coldest Iowa caucuses in history arrive Monday night amid expectations that Republicans in the state will put former President Donald J. Trump on the march to a third G.O.P. presidential nomination.
The battle for second place, hard-fought between Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, will anoint Mr. Trump’s closest rival ahead of the New Hampshire primary election and beyond."
NY Times
I wonder why it is easy to forget about a race to come a very distant and pointless second?
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
That's really good, what I've wanted to see.
I'd expect a lot of votes in the don't know category to end up as will.not vote, as well as some swinging back Tory.
Also, 50+% turnout in the Too Young to Vote section, even assuming those don't knows won't vote. Fewer voters than I thought in this cohort, I thought births were still around 600k a year, but only 12 blocks - even if I'm over on births, is the registration rate really that poor?
Apparently so. However, experience from recent elections is that this is a just-in-time generation, who expect technology to be able to resolve non-registration in real-time, or near it. Expect the 18-24 registration rate to climb substantially through the year.
Well, that's going to make it better for the Tories! Or bring young turnout to a more typical level.
Looking again about 4.9m 2019 non-voters expressing a preference, which sounds high until you see that 6m 2019 are expressing no preference, either by survey or seance.
My one category criticism would be that, although they separate 2019 non-voter and 2019 too young, there is no category for those who have gained and lost voting rights other than by turning 18 or dying; namely, the effect of citizenship changes.
I suspect a non trivial chunk of those categorised as non-voters in 2019 have gained voting rights and will turn out in decent numbers.
“I’ve liked Burnham ever since his appearance at Anfield on the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy.
As the Sports Minister, he was booed by the crowd, but turned them around and promised them that they would see justice - then followed through and ensured that it happened.”
++++
Yes.
The other day I was moaning that there are almost no British politicians that I even slightly admire, or respect, or anything - but actually Burnham is one. He seems honest, direct, intelligent and he has a tiny trace of dynamism where you think Well maybe he will actually do something, rather than just whine or evade or waffle
Also Manchester (to this outsider) seems to have done quite well these last years, under his mayoralty
Compare and contrast with the soul sapping void of inertia that is Sir Keir Starmer. I can’t see Starmer doing ANYTHING. Tho, I suppose, that does give him plenty of room to surprise on the upside
There are rumours Burnham is looking for a parliamentary seat in the NW again
You must be in your 40s by now? To have got this far without any grey seems fortunate indeed.
At least, you can console yourself (in the light of the Grant Shapps conversation) that you still have hair.
I've been greying since my 20s. I'd actually say I prefer it now with rather more salt than pepper than 20 years ago when it just started getting salty. If only I can now hold on to what little is left (though again, I look at photos of me 20 years ago and a thick head of hair, and I never really carried it off particularly well even then.)
I have been greying slowly since my mid 40s, but wow it sped up massively during Covid
I went from about 30% grey to 80% grey in two pandemic years. Now I am nearer 90% maybe, but it has slowed again
So it is absolutely true that stress causes greyness. I wonder what the physiology is
I really struggle to take seriously men who wear toupees. Of course I understand the motivation, but it just seems so absurd.
That's pretty mean. People do all sorts of things for their appearance. Wearing a toupee is but one of them.
Edit: and no I don't wear a toupee but each to their own.
I am speaking as a bald man, BTW. It just seems such an absurd thing to do, although as I mentioned I certainly understand the motivation.
Ah, so it definitely wasn't you in the Hill Station on Saturday then.
Ha no. What time? Might have been a mate of mine, he went there after our bike ride at about 10.30. I was there last night though picking up 5 pizzas to eat in front of The Traitors.
Saturday afternoon. There was a man fitting my mental image of you, which I’ll now have to recalibrate. Tapping away ferociously at his phone like someone on PB.
Haha. I feel sure our paths will cross one day. If you have anyone in the family involved in the Community Show we might run into each other. You will certainly see my wife.
With all this MRP excitement it is easy to forget that today is Caucus Day.
"The coldest Iowa caucuses in history arrive Monday night amid expectations that Republicans in the state will put former President Donald J. Trump on the march to a third G.O.P. presidential nomination.
The battle for second place, hard-fought between Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, will anoint Mr. Trump’s closest rival ahead of the New Hampshire primary election and beyond."
NY Times
The actual caucus must be something of a relief for Iowans, given that all the candidates, their hangers-on, and the media, first turned up in Des Moines about 10 days ago.
I really struggle to take seriously men who wear toupees. Of course I understand the motivation, but it just seems so absurd.
They are, at least, one up from the combover. Which is fooling no-one at all. The combover is perhaps more dignified and honest. But also looks more ridiculous.
When it gets bad enough, just go with a number three or less, and use a hat as necessary.
Thinning hair is a right pain. Too useless to do its proper function (keep you warm in the cold and protected from the sun), but also gets in the way of effective remedies - you try putting suncream on a half-matted head. Plus, it looks silly because it grows in odd directions and doesn't fit with the rest of your hair. Baldness happens to some. Embrace it.
A golden dusk begins to descend over Phnom Penh. And over Wat Botum Vatey - the 15th century temple complex once home to trainee monk Pol Pot
Travel advisory: this is the view from one of my two balconies. The other looks out to the braiding rivers of the Mekong and the tonle sap
My suite has a little kitchen and acres of room. The hotel has a gym and a spa and access to a resort level pool complex 5 minutes away. The hotel has a near perfect location on a quiet road but in the centre - surrounded by chic bars and coffee shops and parks
THIS IS FIFTY QUID A NIGHT
Phnom Penh and Cambodia is general are, I reckon, the best value destinations in the world, right now. If you want a cheap holiday in paradise, here it is (as long as you don’t mind the odd genocidal flashback)
Korea unveils plan to build $472 bil. mega chip cluster in Gyeonggi Province https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366948 Korea will build the world's biggest semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province by 2047 as Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and other chip companies plan to invest a total of 622 trillion won ($472 billion) to build 16 new fabs, creating more than 3 million jobs, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Monday.
By expanding the existing mega cluster with 19 production fabs and two research fabs across adjoining cities in the province, the new mega chip cluster spanning 2,102* square meters will produce 7.7 million wafers each month starting in 2030...
* I think that's a few orders of magnitude off.
It's a good idea tbh - the world needs a bit of chip redundancy; and any sort of military action on Taiwan means the Koreans will clean up.
The global semiconductor market is preposterously exposed to Taiwan risk right now.
And yes, half a football field sounds a bit small for such a project..
You must be in your 40s by now? To have got this far without any grey seems fortunate indeed.
At least, you can console yourself (in the light of the Grant Shapps conversation) that you still have hair.
I've been greying since my 20s. I'd actually say I prefer it now with rather more salt than pepper than 20 years ago when it just started getting salty. If only I can now hold on to what little is left (though again, I look at photos of me 20 years ago and a thick head of hair, and I never really carried it off particularly well even then.)
I have been greying slowly since my mid 40s, but wow it sped up massively during Covid
I went from about 30% grey to 80% grey in two pandemic years. Now I am nearer 90% maybe, but it has slowed again
So it is absolutely true that stress causes greyness. I wonder what the physiology is
I've had two kids and a very stressful job for the last 18 months.
Korea unveils plan to build $472 bil. mega chip cluster in Gyeonggi Province https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366948 Korea will build the world's biggest semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province by 2047 as Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and other chip companies plan to invest a total of 622 trillion won ($472 billion) to build 16 new fabs, creating more than 3 million jobs, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Monday.
By expanding the existing mega cluster with 19 production fabs and two research fabs across adjoining cities in the province, the new mega chip cluster spanning 2,102* square meters will produce 7.7 million wafers each month starting in 2030...
* I think that's a few orders of magnitude off.
Surely this raises the pertinent question as to whether there will even BE three million South Koreans left by 2049, ready to fill 3 million jobs?
You must be in your 40s by now? To have got this far without any grey seems fortunate indeed.
At least, you can console yourself (in the light of the Grant Shapps conversation) that you still have hair.
I've been greying since my 20s. I'd actually say I prefer it now with rather more salt than pepper than 20 years ago when it just started getting salty. If only I can now hold on to what little is left (though again, I look at photos of me 20 years ago and a thick head of hair, and I never really carried it off particularly well even then.)
I have been greying slowly since my mid 40s, but wow it sped up massively during Covid
I went from about 30% grey to 80% grey in two pandemic years. Now I am nearer 90% maybe, but it has slowed again
So it is absolutely true that stress causes greyness. I wonder what the physiology is
I always feel slightly offended when old acquaintances recognise me instantly. "You mean I've always looked like this?"
You must be in your 40s by now? To have got this far without any grey seems fortunate indeed.
At least, you can console yourself (in the light of the Grant Shapps conversation) that you still have hair.
I've been greying since my 20s. I'd actually say I prefer it now with rather more salt than pepper than 20 years ago when it just started getting salty. If only I can now hold on to what little is left (though again, I look at photos of me 20 years ago and a thick head of hair, and I never really carried it off particularly well even then.)
I have been greying slowly since my mid 40s, but wow it sped up massively during Covid
I went from about 30% grey to 80% grey in two pandemic years. Now I am nearer 90% maybe, but it has slowed again
So it is absolutely true that stress causes greyness. I wonder what the physiology is
I've had two kids and a very stressful job for the last 18 months.
So that probably didn't help.
Yeah that’ll do it!
A friend of mine basically went white overnight during a terrible divorce
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
If anything, the poll underplays the problem for the Tories. YouGov says the model allows for tactical voting and maybe it does - but clearly not in all constituencies. My one - Honiton and Sidmouth - it has as a reasonably comfortable Tory win based on a split Labour and LibDem vote. That just isn’t going to happen. Ask the Labour CLP!!!
Last time, in Richmond Park, Labour got 5%. It now has Labour on 19%. Not going to happen! I'd be interested in the tactical voting model they use.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
If anything, the poll underplays the problem for the Tories. YouGov says the model allows for tactical voting and maybe it does - but clearly not in all constituencies. My one - Honiton and Sidmouth - it has as a reasonably comfortable Tory win based on a split Labour and LibDem vote. That just isn’t going to happen. Ask the Labour CLP!!!
Last time, in Richmond Park, Labour got 5%. It now has Labour on 19%. Not going to happen! I'd be interested in the tactical voting model they use.
Yes, it's worse for the Tories than this model implies if it's got stuff like Lab on 19% in Richmond. The swing is modest compared to current polls too.
In a logistics meeting. UK government giving a 3 month grace period on new paperwork restrictions imposed on 31/1 because if they don't there would be chaos at the border. French authorities giving no such leeway.
Stock up anything that includes non UK meat / dairy. Which is an awful lot of products...
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
Are you calling the Conservatives sand? Good metaphor: constantly shifting, but never a good foundation.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, or the other thing would be being lucky enough to preside over good news - low inflation, rising wages, a growing economy etc, and therefore also being able to make some improvements to public services. Lots of things seem to be pointing in the other direction at the moment, but you never know!
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
I agree - I think Starmer has set expectations low but also when he does talk about policy it doesn't look to be meeting the challenge the country faces. Whether you're on the right or the left, big changes need to happen in this country to make life better - and he is essentially saying he will stay the course the Conservatives have plotted and just deliver it with more efficacy; which I don't think will be popular. If he does end up being a centre-right Labour PM the Labour base will sour quickly, and the centre-right will never be happy with what Labour deliver because the right wing media alongside the Conservatives and whatever Farage is doing will always be pushing the agenda further right wing.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
I believe Starmer will get a decade because the Tories will do exactly what Labour did in 2015 and elect somebody like Corbyn. If they don't, then Starmer might be a one term PM, although that rarely happens anyhow.
As somebody who voted for Corbyn twice, I am telling the Tories to absolutely not do that.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
The party "leadership" are still chasing the Brexit vote, despite the electorate running a mile from it
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
I did see this visualisation of what I think is the same polling that shows the relationship between this somewhat:
It does not include people who became voters between 2019 and 2024
See the white squares.
Thank you. I missed that.
No worries, the politicians seem to miss their existence or relevance too....
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
The party "leadership" are still chasing the Brexit vote, despite the electorate running a mile from it
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Unknowable at this point. If he tries to be cautious, semi-continuity current government, then things he's going to fail. He's going to have to be fairly bold on a couple of major policies early on, otherwise his government will just be at the mercy of events.
He can't 'solve all our problems', but he needs to move the dial (preferably in a positive direction).
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
I would vote for that in a heartbeat. Personally find it totally incongruous to believe that and actively support the current iteration of the Tories though. They are all about penny pinching today even if it loads costs into the future through lack of investment.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
The party "leadership" are still chasing the Brexit vote, despite the electorate running a mile from it
They aren't doing it for the voters, they know just as well as everybody else that the Brexit brand is trash. It's the party membership that demands ritual obeisance before the ziggurat of dysfunction that is Brexit.
Korea unveils plan to build $472 bil. mega chip cluster in Gyeonggi Province https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366948 Korea will build the world's biggest semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province by 2047 as Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and other chip companies plan to invest a total of 622 trillion won ($472 billion) to build 16 new fabs, creating more than 3 million jobs, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Monday.
By expanding the existing mega cluster with 19 production fabs and two research fabs across adjoining cities in the province, the new mega chip cluster spanning 2,102* square meters will produce 7.7 million wafers each month starting in 2030...
* I think that's a few orders of magnitude off.
It's a good idea tbh - the world needs a bit of chip redundancy; and any sort of military action on Taiwan means the Koreans will clean up.
The global semiconductor market is preposterously exposed to Taiwan risk right now.
And yes, half a football field sounds a bit small for such a project..
I think you have to go big or go home in chip making.
Taiwan, S Korea, China (of necessity given U.S. export restrictions), and the US (though quite a lot of their new capacity will be foreign owned) are likely still to be the big four. Assuming China doesn't invade Taiwan.
Japan is also trying to get back into the business, but are insufficiently ambitious. They'll probably settle for closer ties with the Korean industry.
Selzer's Iowa Poll: DeSantis falls to third at 16% behind Haley (20%) & Trump (48%). If DeSantis comes in 3, backer tells me he should he drop out & endorse Trump:
A general election with a change of government (and I’d count 2019 as that because of the very different leadership) is a reset and reboot. It immediately turns the previous administration into the past. I think this can be good or bad for the incoming government.
Starmer needs some luck, on the economy and living standards. If things improve people will credit Labour in a way they wouldn’t have done with the current government. Even a small bit of economic good news could be enough.
On the other hand if Labour messes up then memories are quite short. If the Tories put up a sensible shadow team (seems unlikely, but who knows) then I think voters will be quick to forgive the 2019-24 government. After all look how quickly centrists forgave Labour for Corbyn.
I do think the Conservatives will go for an ideologue as their next leader though. I thought Cleverly was in with a chance as the presentable candidate but he’s rather messed up in recent weeks.
Selzer's Iowa Poll: DeSantis falls to third at 16% behind Haley (20%) & Trump (48%). If DeSantis comes in 3, backer tells me he should he drop out & endorse Trump:
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Selzer's Iowa Poll: DeSantis falls to third at 16% behind Haley (20%) & Trump (48%). If DeSantis comes in 3, backer tells me he should he drop out & endorse Trump:
Normally that would be good advice but in this case there's a plausible (albeit not probable) chance that his main opponent will be disqualified by Super Tuesday. I don't know if he can afford to stay in the race but if he can then he may as well keep on chewing.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
If voting can be reformed to involve clicking a like heart on a video then they’ll be voting in droves.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
Curious. Wouldn't that particular bit of Telegraph spin actually deter right-wing voters from voting Reform? In the past the Telegraph has always had a soft spot for UKIP and the various other Farage vehicles. What's changed?
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
I’m thinking invest in manufacturing for export. To nice cuddly regimes only, of course.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
Curious. Wouldn't that particular bit of Telegraph spin actually deter right-wing voters from voting Reform? In the past the Telegraph has always had a soft spot for UKIP and the various other Farage vehicles. What's changed?
Nothing, it is now part of uniting the two, under Farage or Boris.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
In a logistics meeting. UK government giving a 3 month grace period on new paperwork restrictions imposed on 31/1 because if they don't there would be chaos at the border. French authorities giving no such leeway.
Stock up anything that includes non UK meat / dairy. Which is an awful lot of products...
UK Government fully prepared again to act in the British interest.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
Yet in 2019 the Tories won most voters aged over 39, coincidentally the age more own a home than not
CDU/CSU 27% AfD 18% SPD 14% BSW 14% Greens 12% FDP 4% Left 3% FW 2% Others 5%
As I believe CDU/CSU and SPD and Greens will all rule out any coalition with BSW (or AfD), and others won't make the cut, on this poll it would leave CDU/CSU + SPD + Greens as the only possible coalition, which is unlikely to please anyone...
Yes, the emergence of a populist left party seems potentially to take the wind out of the sails of the populist right AfD (who drop 4 points on this showing) and the conservative CDU (-3), with only 1-point losses for the SPD and Left. As you say it's possibly dodgy, since reminding people of one party draws attention to it. But as the party has only existed for a couple of weeks it may have the potential to grow.
Whether it deserves to is a different question. It seems to hinge entirely on the popularity of its leader, and general contrarinism on everything.
“I’ve liked Burnham ever since his appearance at Anfield on the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy.
As the Sports Minister, he was booed by the crowd, but turned them around and promised them that they would see justice - then followed through and ensured that it happened.”
++++
Yes.
The other day I was moaning that there are almost no British politicians that I even slightly admire, or respect, or anything - but actually Burnham is one. He seems honest, direct, intelligent and he has a tiny trace of dynamism where you think Well maybe he will actually do something, rather than just whine or evade or waffle
Also Manchester (to this outsider) seems to have done quite well these last years, under his mayoralty
Compare and contrast with the soul sapping void of inertia that is Sir Keir Starmer. I can’t see Starmer doing ANYTHING. Tho, I suppose, that does give him plenty of room to surprise on the upside
There are rumours Burnham is looking for a parliamentary seat in the NW again
I suspect most of us on here despise Starmer for being a venal carpetbagger.
Introducing the King of the North, another venal carpetbagger and one with New Labour baggage.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
I’m thinking invest in manufacturing for export. To nice cuddly regimes only, of course.
Two problems with that in my view: 1. Our defence companies produce very expensive kit relative to most other places. 2. Import/export is so political; we could invest a great deal and not really find markets for it (or, more likely, the current system of being 'forced' into selling to eg Saudis as we can't find a market amongst cuddly regimes).
In my view we'd be better being honest: we need 'independent' defence production for strategic security reasons, but reliable investment it ain't. Especially as it will almost inevitably rely on joint ventures with other countries (Europe, USA probably). Hence the inverted commas around independent.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
But is “stopping the boats” really the right tactic when actually the volume comes from legal migration. Seems such a niche aspect of the wider immigration policy that is sapping all life from the government for relatively little impact
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
They don't agree on much is part of the problem.
HS2 Yes or No? Student immigration for the economy balance of payments or restrict it as its immigration and that is bad? ECHR or not? Singapore on Thames low taxen haven or fund public services? High wage economy or public sector pay freezes? Build houses or protect the value of existing houses?
They are all over the place on matters of import so are left with the trivial and nonsenscial.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
If Sir Keir is put up against an opponent who is a straight talker, or possesses an ounce (or gram) of charisma he is likely to haemorrhage votes during the campaign, when the public see him try to stutter and bluff his way through it. But is there anyone? Can’t think of a Tory.
Maybe Farage could do it, but would there be any Sir Keir vs Farage showdowns? Nige should challenge him to one at least
Maybe a left wing Lib Dem, who is young with a bit of passion?
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
Curious. Wouldn't that particular bit of Telegraph spin actually deter right-wing voters from voting Reform? In the past the Telegraph has always had a soft spot for UKIP and the various other Farage vehicles. What's changed?
Nothing, it is now part of uniting the two, under Farage or Boris.
The problem is far more than the DTel indicates. Let us assume that elections are won from the centre, that only Tory and Labour count as possible governments, and 2019 was a unique election, there being no centre to vote for (Brexit v Jezza).
Significant numbers of people are voting LD and Labour instead of Tory. This isn't because the Tories are not right wing enough. A single Tory party whose principles united Reform and the Tory splinters would simply leave a void where the moderate Tory majority once were and leaves the centre/centre left (any combination of Lab/LD/SNP) to clean up.
Because it is practically impossible to create a new successful centre right party the old one, called the Conservatives will have to be it. Older PBers will recall the mirror image of this from 1981 and the SDP. And anyone who thinks the centre right has equivalent figures to Jenkins and Williams around is delusional. And these giants failed
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
I still think it’s a quaint idea that Gen Z will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad is the government.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
The MoD and the forces need root and branch reform before they get another penny. If they get more money now then >50% will be wasted to zero (or net negative) effect.
There aren't enough people of the right calibre coming in and there are too many leaving. Until somebody in authority asks why this might be and come up with a plan to fix it all thoughts of fantasy flotillas is a counter-productive distraction.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
Curious. Wouldn't that particular bit of Telegraph spin actually deter right-wing voters from voting Reform? In the past the Telegraph has always had a soft spot for UKIP and the various other Farage vehicles. What's changed?
Nothing, it is now part of uniting the two, under Farage or Boris.
The problem is far more than the DTel indicates. Let us assume that elections are won from the centre, that only Tory and Labour count as possible governments, and 2019 was a unique election, there being no centre to vote for (Brexit v Jezza).
Significant numbers of people are voting LD and Labour instead of Tory. This isn't because the Tories are not right wing enough. A single Tory party whose principles united Reform and the Tory splinters would simply leave a void where the moderate Tory majority once were and leaves the centre/centre left (any combination of Lab/LD/SNP) to clean up.
Because it is practically impossible to create a new successful centre right party the old one, called the Conservatives will have to be it. Older PBers will recall the mirror image of this from 1981 and the SDP. And anyone who thinks the centre right has equivalent figures to Jenkins and Williams around is delusional. And these giants failed
Elections are generally won from the centre, but that is not guaranteed. In tough economic times they are often won by stories instead. And the best story tellers the right has, by far, are Johnson and Farage.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
I still think it’s a quaint idea that Gen Z will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad is the government.
Old codgers have been saying that sort of thing about "the youth of today" since the beginnings of democracy. They were definitely saying it about GenX back in the early 1990s.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
I still think it’s a quaint idea that Gen Z will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad is the government.
I still think it's a quaint idea that Gen Boomer will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad Wokeism is.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
There are different sorts of answers to this, because there are different flavours of right wing (unlike Corbyn, who was the full left wing package).
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
For a long time now, there's been a very powerful instinctive reaction to disbelieve the evidence that the Tories are facing a catastrophic defeat at the next election.
Comments
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=366948
Korea will build the world's biggest semiconductor cluster in Gyeonggi Province by 2047 as Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and other chip companies plan to invest a total of 622 trillion won ($472 billion) to build 16 new fabs, creating more than 3 million jobs, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Monday.
By expanding the existing mega cluster with 19 production fabs and two research fabs across adjoining cities in the province, the new mega chip cluster spanning 2,102* square meters will produce 7.7 million wafers each month starting in 2030...
* I think that's a few orders of magnitude off.
Looking again about 4.9m 2019 non-voters expressing a preference, which sounds high until you see that 6m 2019 are expressing no preference, either by survey or seance.
My one category criticism would be that, although they separate 2019 non-voter and 2019 too young, there is no category for those who have gained and lost voting rights other than by turning 18 or dying; namely, the effect of citizenship changes.
I suspect a non trivial chunk of those categorised as non-voters in 2019 have gained voting rights and will turn out in decent numbers.
I went from about 30% grey to 80% grey in two pandemic years. Now I am nearer 90% maybe, but it has slowed again
So it is absolutely true that stress causes greyness. I wonder what the physiology is
Thinning hair is a right pain. Too useless to do its proper function (keep you warm in the cold and protected from the sun), but also gets in the way of effective remedies - you try putting suncream on a half-matted head. Plus, it looks silly because it grows in odd directions and doesn't fit with the rest of your hair. Baldness happens to some. Embrace it.
Travel advisory: this is the view from one of my two balconies. The other looks out to the braiding rivers of the Mekong and the tonle sap
My suite has a little kitchen and acres of room. The hotel has a gym and a spa and access to a resort level pool complex 5 minutes away. The hotel has a near perfect location on a quiet road but in the centre - surrounded by chic bars and coffee shops and parks
THIS IS FIFTY QUID A NIGHT
Phnom Penh and Cambodia is general are, I reckon, the best value destinations in the world, right now. If you want a cheap holiday in paradise, here it is (as long as you don’t mind the odd genocidal flashback)
The global semiconductor market is preposterously exposed to Taiwan risk right now.
And yes, half a football field sounds a bit small for such a project..
So that probably didn't help.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260
A friend of mine basically went white overnight during a terrible divorce
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
Garden Bridge
Thames estuary airport
Oven-ready Brexit deal with no border down the Irish Sea
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Stock up anything that includes non UK meat / dairy. Which is an awful lot of products...
As somebody who voted for Corbyn twice, I am telling the Tories to absolutely not do that.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
If he tries to be cautious, semi-continuity current government, then things he's going to fail. He's going to have to be fairly bold on a couple of major policies early on, otherwise his government will just be at the mercy of events.
He can't 'solve all our problems', but he needs to move the dial (preferably in a positive direction).
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Taiwan, S Korea, China (of necessity given U.S. export restrictions), and the US (though quite a lot of their new capacity will be foreign owned) are likely still to be the big four.
Assuming China doesn't invade Taiwan.
Japan is also trying to get back into the business, but are insufficiently ambitious. They'll probably settle for closer ties with the Korean industry.
Selzer's Iowa Poll: DeSantis falls to third at 16% behind Haley (20%) & Trump (48%). If DeSantis comes in 3, backer tells me he should he drop out & endorse Trump:
"It’s better to swallow the shit sandwich whole rather than chew it in small bites."
https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1746358869121523886
Starmer needs some luck, on the economy and living standards. If things improve people will credit Labour in a way they wouldn’t have done with the current government. Even a small bit of economic good news could be enough.
On the other hand if Labour messes up then memories are quite short. If the Tories put up a sensible shadow team (seems unlikely, but who knows) then I think voters will be quick to forgive the 2019-24 government. After all look how quickly centrists forgave Labour for Corbyn.
I do think the Conservatives will go for an ideologue as their next leader though. I thought Cleverly was in with a chance as the presentable candidate but he’s rather messed up in recent weeks.
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
https://x.com/anthonyjwells/status/1746841912135278698
- Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
-
- Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
-
- Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
He has his own plane and personally homes Ukrainian refugees so can’t be all bad. That Michael Green tho’, total c***.
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Let's dance like it was 2021 ...
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Whether it deserves to is a different question. It seems to hinge entirely on the popularity of its leader, and general contrarinism on everything.
Introducing the King of the North, another venal carpetbagger and one with New Labour baggage.
1. Our defence companies produce very expensive kit relative to most other places.
2. Import/export is so political; we could invest a great deal and not really find markets for it (or, more likely, the current system of being 'forced' into selling to eg Saudis as we can't find a market amongst cuddly regimes).
In my view we'd be better being honest: we need 'independent' defence production for strategic security reasons, but reliable investment it ain't. Especially as it will almost inevitably rely on joint ventures with other countries (Europe, USA probably). Hence the inverted commas around independent.
HS2 Yes or No?
Student immigration for the economy balance of payments or restrict it as its immigration and that is bad?
ECHR or not?
Singapore on Thames low taxen haven or fund public services?
High wage economy or public sector pay freezes?
Build houses or protect the value of existing houses?
They are all over the place on matters of import so are left with the trivial and nonsenscial.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
Maybe Farage could do it, but would there be any Sir Keir vs Farage showdowns? Nige should challenge him to one at least
Maybe a left wing Lib Dem, who is young with a bit of passion?
Significant numbers of people are voting LD and Labour instead of Tory. This isn't because the Tories are not right wing enough. A single Tory party whose principles united Reform and the Tory splinters would simply leave a void where the moderate Tory majority once were and leaves the centre/centre left (any combination of Lab/LD/SNP) to clean up.
Because it is practically impossible to create a new successful centre right party the old one, called the Conservatives will have to be it. Older PBers will recall the mirror image of this from 1981 and the SDP. And anyone who thinks the centre right has equivalent figures to Jenkins and Williams around is delusional. And these giants failed
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
There aren't enough people of the right calibre coming in and there are too many leaving. Until somebody in authority asks why this might be and come up with a plan to fix it all thoughts of fantasy flotillas is a counter-productive distraction.
Reading the Telegraph, their overwhelming emphasis seems to be to try and scare Reform UK wallahs back into the Tory fold.
https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
This is probably a betting opportunity.