I miss the days when we were assured Sweden didn’t want anything to do with NATO, although they need to come up with better Operation names, it’s no Able Archer or ReForGer.
Nato members will send 90,000 troops to the alliance’s largest military exercise since the Cold War.
Britain is deploying 20,000 soldiers to Operation Steadfast Defender 2024, which starts next week and will continue until the end of May.
Gen Christopher Cavoli, Nato’s most senior commander, said the exercises would demonstrate the alliance’s ability to quickly “reinforce” its territory in the event of an attack.
Exercises will take place in Germany, Poland and the Baltic States in what is widely expected to be a simulation of war with Russia.
Troops from all 31 Nato members and Sweden, a candidate for membership, are taking part.
You can tell the Americans are in charge when operations have daftly heroic names. I prefer the British names which mean absolutely nothing e.g. Operation Market Garden.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The fuss Starmer and his acolytes kicked up when Boris blamed him at PMQs for the decision not to prosecute Savile indicates he doesn't believe that the DPP should resign when bad things happen on their watch, if they were not personally involved.
I happen to agree with him but it would undermine him now, if in opposition he were to call for a cabinet minister to resign for a scandal at their department in which they were not personally involved.
And a graph where the peak positive response is just 12% tells us what, exactly? Except that few of us trust any of them.
Farage has the most cult-like following.
Lots of support but a low ceiling too, which is why no UKIP candidate apart from the Clacton defector ever got elected.
How much is the low ceiling down to the expectations the Tories will poll 2x or more than refuk/ukip so the latter is the wasted vote. If the gap narrows further they have a realistic shot to slingshot past into the low twenties.
Low twenties is not enough, you need low thirties to win a seat, even with split opposition. That's what I mean by low ceiling.
We have a couple of byelections next month. I expect Reform to lose their deposits in both.
It's why (thus far) we're not heading for Canada '93. Their Reform had a regional base, which meant they smashed that part of the country and got a decent block of seats. So they were able to take over the "party of the right" mantle from the Progressive Conservatives and, eventually, take the party over.
RefUK doesn't really have a similar base- the biggest concentration is along the east coast, but even that is too diffuse to be useful in FPTP. So as things stand, the Reform effect is to gift seats from Conservatives to Labour.
It's also what distinguishes the UK from continental Europe- PR would give much more opportunity for a more forceful right party to build strength.
Anyone know what sort of national poll ratings are needed for RefUK to win a meaningful number of seats?
Putting some rough numbers into electoral calculus getting:
Reform 22% = 24 seats with Tories 15% = 35 seats. (LDs official opposition).
No idea how much thought has gone into their modelling for such a scenario though, probably little to none.
So how does RefUK overcome the FPTP trap? They're unlikely to join with their lefty enemies in a PR vote anytime soon and most of their ageing support base are probably indoctrinated to believe FPTP brings strong government, so...they need to get creative.
The Canadian (and Italian) models are perhaps the most useful. Become a regional party. Which region? They have a choice of 2 I think: the Eastern fenland and coastal counties, or the Thames estuary.
Trouble with the Eastern option is I'm not sure there's much of a regional identity. Teesside is going to see itself as Teesside or at a push the North East. Lincolnshire is sui generis and too small on its own. The estuary has the problem of dividing two populations who don't realise how similar they are: estuarine Essex and estuarine Kent. So am estuary party isn't going to work.
So, how about the local radio or local newspaper strategy. A franchise with local identity. Multiple "regional" parties united by an umbrella brand. That allows for a Lincolnshire people's party, a Kentish men / men of Kent party, an Essex party and so on, each with their own leadership and candidates but all endorsed by an influential franchisor, like Farage, and bearing their colours. If the CDU/CSU can pull it off in Germany maybe it's an option.
It's not even unknown in Britain. The SDLP and Alliance party being the Labour and Lib Dem siblings in NI but still being very clearly Northern Irish parties.
I thought Reform did want PR
It does.
Tonight will be an illustration of the absurdity of FPTP.
There are two by elections today in Richmond Park - Teddington and Hampton North. Results in by midnight.
They will both be Lib Dem wins and will leave Richmond Borough Council with 54 Councillors with zero Tories and zero Labour! Yet I would guess that 20% of residents are Labour supporters and 30% are Tories. But no representation whatsoever. It's not healthy.
Newham is another example - I can see no argument against PR for local elections, none whatsoever and ideally STV. Anything but that abomination known as AV.
IIRC Doncaster had some corruption scandals in the 1990s when it was pretty much a one-party state on the council.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The fuss Starmer and his acolytes kicked up when Boris blamed him at PMQs for the decision not to prosecute Savile indicates he doesn't believe that the DPP should resign when bad things happen on their watch, if they were not personally involved.
I happen to agree with him but it would undermine him now, if in opposition he were to call for a cabinet minister to resign for a scandal at their department in which they were not personally involved.
I mean, it depends on the nature of the bad thing and the nature of the governance of the DPP vs. a Govt dept. They’re different bodies operating in different ways, so I don’t see why you should be able to read across from one to the other.
For example, I don’t think a Home Secretary should be responsible for every individual visa decision, as a DPP shouldn’t be responsible for every single decision to go to court or not, but I think a Home Secretary is responsible for the general levels of immigration.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The second statement is not only consistent, it actually provides evidence for the first.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The fuss Starmer and his acolytes kicked up when Boris blamed him at PMQs for the decision not to prosecute Savile indicates he doesn't believe that the DPP should resign when bad things happen on their watch, if they were not personally involved.
I happen to agree with him but it would undermine him now, if in opposition he were to call for a cabinet minister to resign for a scandal at their department in which they were not personally involved.
I mean, it depends on the nature of the bad thing and the nature of the governance of the DPP vs. a Govt dept. They’re different bodies operating in different ways, so I don’t see why you should be able to read across from one to the other.
For example, I don’t think a Home Secretary should be responsible for every individual visa decision, as a DPP shouldn’t be responsible for every single decision to go to court or not, but I think a Home Secretary is responsible for the general levels of immigration.
I’d agree, but Starmer makes a point of saying he does take full responsibility for everything that happened at the CPS whilst he was DPP
The picture emerging from the inquiry is that Fujitsu knew from the start that its system was unfit for purpose (aka total crap), and did its very best to hide this from the Post Office while employing teams working through the night desperately patching bugs - while the Post Office initially prosecuted subpostmasters believing the assurances from its supplier, but as the true picture began to emerge, doubled down rather than face up to the travesty it has already committed. And as the situation got worse and worse, continued to play double or quits like a desperate gambler who knows they can’t afford the losses already incurred. Until the whole house came tumbling down.
Who is the most culpable, you can decide?
Meanwhile if Sir Wyn wants to cut and paste the above for the opening section of his inquiry report, his cheque should be sent to the usual address.
Over a couple of weekends you and I could probably write the entire report.
I see that Fujitsu have decided not to put themselves forward for any more public sector contracts.
That's good of them but Fujitsu already has more than enough:-
Since 2012, the public sector as a whole has awarded Fujitsu almost 200 contracts worth a combined total of £6.8 billion, according to analysts Tussell.
About 43 of those contracts are still in operation, worth a total of £3.6 billion, including the contract for the Post Office Horizon system, and multiple government departments including the Home Office, the Foreign Office, Defra and the Ministry of Defence.
The Environment Agency extended its flood alerts contract with Fujitsu in December, spending an extra £2 million on the agreement to keep it in place to December 2025. It brings the total spend on the deal since 2016 to £19.5 million.
In November last year, the government even awarded Fujitsu another £36 million to keep the Horizon contract running until 2025 after initially spending £2.4 billion.
Before this Thread and it's Header head West into Web-Twilight . . .
Unlike OGH, yours truly does NOT believe that results of next Tuesday's New Hampshire DemocratIC presidential primary will have "no bearing whatsoever" on the Democratic nomination.
Why?
> Highly likely that while DNC rules strip NH Dems of national convention delegates due to NH primary preceding SC & NV Dem primaries, by time convention rolls around, New Hampshire delegates will be seated via some kind of compromise; that's what happened in 2016 with Michigan.
> Joe Biden is NOT on the NH Dem pres primary ballot, as he did NOT file (see above) but there is an active write-in campaign, led by top statewide elected Democrats and (more to the point) their consultants, organizations, operatives.
> Note that Lyndon Johnson was also write-in candidate in 1968 New Hampshire primary, having also NOT filled (out of reluctance to run for re-election?); LBJ garnered just over 50% of the Democratic primary votes, in fact more votes as a write-in, than Eugene McCarthy did with his name on the ballot. Yet media & pundit interpreted result as victory for the anti-war challenger . . . as did the President, who announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election shortly afterward.
> My guess is that in 2024, media will be looking at BOTH the Republican and Democratic results of the venerable New Hampshire presidential primary. Which has been having an impact on national politics since (even before) Estes Kefauver scored his shock victory over Harry Truman in early 1952.
> For Joe Biden, reckon the Magic Number for him in New Hampshire next week, is same as for Donald Trump in Iowa this week = better 50% of votes cast in his party's race; the higher, the better-er.
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The second statement is not only consistent, it actually provides evidence for the first.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
AUIU judges can only take into account the evidence that is formally brought into court. The English courts were ordered to assume that all computer-says-no stuff was valid a priori. And lots of cases never got as far as a proper trial cos the subbies paid up at once [edit] within the PO system, so never got to a court, or pled guilty as tghe best of a bad job. All the judge had to do tin the latter case was sentence them.
The Scottish system smelt a rat earlier but the PO still kept swearing blind all was well. The LA has apologised.
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
It's a valid point. Can Labour grab a decent share of REFUK? It's not as implausible as it sounds as apart from immigration these are statist and welfare voters, not libertarians.
Luntz: "the Trump voters I spoke to in Iowa were behind him 100%. They are behind his rhetoric, his approach, everything, they think he is a victim ... a victim of the entire political system in america. It's working with them and it's scary."
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The second statement is not only consistent, it actually provides evidence for the first.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
The judge who accepted the PO's analysis of the contracts and whether they really were posting accounts in the accepted sense such that a false accounting charge could be brought got it wrong. The CCRC also behaved poorly.
But there is a wider point about why it was that no-one was noticing all these prosecutions, the links between them and asking whether this pattern was showing something unusual which needed to be looked into further. That is a good question and one which needs looking at properly and some sensible answers.
Luntz: "the Trump voters I spoke to in Iowa were behind him 100%. They are behind his rhetoric, his approach, everything, they think he is a victim ... a victim of the entire political system in america. It's working with them and it's scary."
I suspect it is going to take 10 months for some pb denizens to accept this fairly obvious, if sad and uncomfortable, truth.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, of course the truth is his supporters are 100% behind him regardless of events, and events solidify his support, not that he is a victim)
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
The over 65s are the only age group that still read newspapers, so are more likely to be influenced by the Mail, Telegraph and Express. They are also the generation that remember when racism was acceptable, and some still don’t understand what is wrong with it. They are also frightened that the other parties will take away the triple lock and introduce wealth taxes.
Regarding Labour, many people are economically liberal but socially conservative. RefUK appeals to those whose social views are more important to them than their economic views. RefUK’s difficulty would be if they were seen to be economically, as well as socially, conservative.
The picture emerging from the inquiry is that Fujitsu knew from the start that its system was unfit for purpose (aka total crap), and did its very best to hide this from the Post Office while employing teams working through the night desperately patching bugs - while the Post Office initially prosecuted subpostmasters believing the assurances from its supplier, but as the true picture began to emerge, doubled down rather than face up to the travesty it has already committed. And as the situation got worse and worse, continued to play double or quits like a desperate gambler who knows they can’t afford the losses already incurred. Until the whole house came tumbling down.
Who is the most culpable, you can decide?
Meanwhile if Sir Wyn wants to cut and paste the above for the opening section of his inquiry report, his cheque should be sent to the usual address.
Over a couple of weekends you and I could probably write the entire report.
I see that Fujitsu have decided not to put themselves forward for any more public sector contracts.
Luntz: "the Trump voters I spoke to in Iowa were behind him 100%. They are behind his rhetoric, his approach, everything, they think he is a victim ... a victim of the entire political system in america. It's working with them and it's scary."
I suspect it is going to take 10 months for some pb denizens to accept this fairly obvious, if sad and uncomfortable, truth.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, of course the truth is his supporters are 100% behind him regardless of events, and events solidify his support, not that he is a victim)
I don't think anyone doubts his widespread cult following, the question is whether that is enough.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The second statement is not only consistent, it actually provides evidence for the first.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
The judge who accepted the PO's analysis of the contracts and whether they really were posting accounts in the accepted sense such that a false accounting charge could be brought got it wrong. The CCRC also behaved poorly.
But there is a wider point about why it was that no-one was noticing all these prosecutions, the links between them and asking whether this pattern was showing something unusual which needed to be looked into further. That is a good question and one which needs looking at properly and some sensible answers.
Thank you - and also for pointing out the piece by Mr Green.
Luntz: "the Trump voters I spoke to in Iowa were behind him 100%. They are behind his rhetoric, his approach, everything, they think he is a victim ... a victim of the entire political system in america. It's working with them and it's scary."
I suspect it is going to take 10 months for some pb denizens to accept this fairly obvious, if sad and uncomfortable, truth.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, of course the truth is his supporters are 100% behind him regardless of events, and events solidify his support, not that he is a victim)
I don't think anyone doubts his widespread cult following, the question is whether that is enough.
Lots of expectation that 2024 court cases will do him harm - yet he has consolidated support during the 2023 court cases. I will be delighted if I'm wrong, but if you believe what Trump supporters do, and he gets convicted or even jailed it just reconfirms your belief that the system is unfair.
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
The over 65s are the only age group that still read newspapers, so are more likely to be influenced by the Mail, Telegraph and Express. They are also the generation that remember when racism was acceptable, and some still don’t understand what is wrong with it. They are also frightened that the other parties will take away the triple lock and introduce wealth taxes.
Regarding Labour, many people are economically liberal but socially conservative. RefUK appeals to those whose social views are more important to them than their economic views. RefUK’s difficulty would be if they were seen to be economically, as well as socially, conservative.
Also children in the Labour goverments of the 1960s-early 70s - badly frightened by their parents' conversations over the inflation, strikes, etc. etc. of the time. I was a child then, and in the 1980s my mother warned me to spend all my money because Blair and Labour were coming ...
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
Very different generations. The over 65s in 1997 were young during WW2. They had been scarred by it and were used to pulling together. The over 65s now are the boomer generation, one of the most selfish and self-obsessed generations ever. It is not surprising that the ‘winner takes it all and sod the rest’ approach of today’s Tories and RefUK should appeal to them.
[Just for the record I am a boomer, albeit not one of the 36%]
Luntz: "the Trump voters I spoke to in Iowa were behind him 100%. They are behind his rhetoric, his approach, everything, they think he is a victim ... a victim of the entire political system in america. It's working with them and it's scary."
I suspect it is going to take 10 months for some pb denizens to accept this fairly obvious, if sad and uncomfortable, truth.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, of course the truth is his supporters are 100% behind him regardless of events, and events solidify his support, not that he is a victim)
That's been evident for quite some time. What isn't at all clear is whether that's enough to re-elect him.
I won't bother HYUFD, out of the goodness of my heart. But
'In Scotland, just 33% of people prefer the royal family – the lowest figure out of all the UK nations - according to the pollster's data.'
Oh I see you have found the second Republic commissioned poll as they continue their agenda of pushing polls, which include elected head of state rather than republic v monarchy as it polls slightly better.
Republic are doing this of course because they are too cowardly to stand for election on their pro Republic agenda so we must continue to ignore their agenda.
Even then the fact this Republic commissioned Yougov poll finds just 31% of UK voters want an elected head of state is pathetic for them. If Republic cannot even get all the 32% who voted for Corbyn even in 2019 to support them and a comfortable majority of Scots for a republic, who can they get?
Completely missing the point.
Arse you accusing Yougov of being bent? You've very close to it, unless ytou admit bending the conclusions.
Fact remains - royalism is ebbing.
I merely observe an interesting fact.
Ebbing but still a massive 17% ahead, even on this new Republic commissioned poll
Trying to conflate the Commons refusal to implement the result of the referendum with the Lords thwarting the Rwanda bill is straw clutching from Rishi I think. I don’t remember explicitly voting for it, and neither does anyone else
Coming across like a poor man’s Theresa May
Do not frustrate the will of the people'
In a press conference this morning @RishiSunak urged members of the House of Lords to 'do the right thing' after his Rwanda Bill passed through the Commons itv.com/news/2024-01-1…
If Rishi underperforms vs expectations in the same way as Mrs May did, the Tories could be down to 50 odd seats....
Sunak & Sir Keir are so devoid of any charisma, if there were a charismatic, straight talking, non Tory or Labour politician out the conditions are ripe for a Cleggasm. I’d say Farage but is he too well known?
We're looking at a non-charismatic landslide victory. Nothing like 1997 in that sense.
When the voters see Sir Keir in action they’ll surely be put off by what a pillock he is. Saying that, there’s what seems like a nice advert for him on itv tonight at 830
Re our bet, let’s leave it as £100@3/1 as if the email never happened. I’m sorry but I don’t believe your attempt to make it look like it was a misunderstanding, I think you played a snide trick by saying you’d void it and have gone back on your word. If when I mailed you, you’d have insisted on keeping the bet I’d have accepted that, and that’s where we are so it doesn’t matter much.
Thanks for closing the circle. I'd have preferred arbitration or a 50/50 compromise to avoid hard feelings (since both our POVs on that email are imo understandable) but this hasn't been an enjoyable exchange and it's a relief to end it.
I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.
He said he takes responsibility for all CPS decisions under his watch, but as soon as he was confronted with the PO prosecutions he started talking about how he had 7,000 staff and they made mistakes. Seems more like spreading the blame than carrying the can
That still isn't a contradiction.
I think what I’ve said does show a contradiction actually, he said every decision taken was his responsibility. then started mentioning other people when a bad decision could have been uncovered. The original tweet can be seen as ok if you want to see it that way.
It would only be a contradiction if he claimed to be infallible.
He can both be responsible for every decision, and accept that there will have been mistakes without contradiction.
The second statement is not only consistent, it actually provides evidence for the first.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
The judge who accepted the PO's analysis of the contracts and whether they really were posting accounts in the accepted sense such that a false accounting charge could be brought got it wrong. The CCRC also behaved poorly.
But there is a wider point about why it was that no-one was noticing all these prosecutions, the links between them and asking whether this pattern was showing something unusual which needed to be looked into further. That is a good question and one which needs looking at properly and some sensible answers.
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
What I find hard to ken is how it is that the Tories manage to retain a lead among over-65s?
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
Very different generations. The over 65s in 1997 were young during WW2. They had been scarred by it and were used to pulling together. The over 65s now are the boomer generation, one of the most selfish and self-obsessed generations ever. It is not surprising that the ‘winner takes it all and sod the rest’ approach of today’s Tories and RefUK should appeal to them.
[Just for the record I am a boomer, albeit not one of the 36%]
Boomers’ attitudes are not surprising, given they are the Thatcher generation. No such thing as society, etc.
Comments
I happen to agree with him but it would undermine him now, if in opposition he were to call for a cabinet minister to resign for a scandal at their department in which they were not personally involved.
For example, I don’t think a Home Secretary should be responsible for every individual visa decision, as a DPP shouldn’t be responsible for every single decision to go to court or not, but I think a Home Secretary is responsible for the general levels of immigration.
A good leader recognises that human errors can be made, that staff who make mistakes should be supported, and that any system that allows a single human error to have a material impact is flawed and the responsibility for setting up a such a system is with those at the top.
The question is whether the controls were in place to prevent an enormous miscarriage of justice, as in the Post Office case. Clearly not, and I'm still confused as to why this isn't, at least in part, the fault of the judiciary.
Since 2012, the public sector as a whole has awarded Fujitsu almost 200 contracts worth a combined total of £6.8 billion, according to analysts Tussell.
About 43 of those contracts are still in operation, worth a total of £3.6 billion, including the contract for the Post Office Horizon system, and multiple government departments including the Home Office, the Foreign Office, Defra and the Ministry of Defence.
The Environment Agency extended its flood alerts contract with Fujitsu in December, spending an extra £2 million on the agreement to keep it in place to December 2025. It brings the total spend on the deal since 2016 to £19.5 million.
In November last year, the government even awarded Fujitsu another £36 million to keep the Horizon contract running until 2025 after initially spending £2.4 billion.
Fujitsu was also awarded a contract in 2022 to work on a new UK emergency alert system for mobile phones and tablets - a move peers in the House of Lords labelled “immoral”.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-08/fujitsu-has-won-more-than-150-government-contracts-since-horizon-scandal
Unlike OGH, yours truly does NOT believe that results of next Tuesday's New Hampshire DemocratIC presidential primary will have "no bearing whatsoever" on the Democratic nomination.
Why?
> Highly likely that while DNC rules strip NH Dems of national convention delegates due to NH primary preceding SC & NV Dem primaries, by time convention rolls around, New Hampshire delegates will be seated via some kind of compromise; that's what happened in 2016 with Michigan.
> Joe Biden is NOT on the NH Dem pres primary ballot, as he did NOT file (see above) but there is an active write-in campaign, led by top statewide elected Democrats and (more to the point) their consultants, organizations, operatives.
> Note that Lyndon Johnson was also write-in candidate in 1968 New Hampshire primary, having also NOT filled (out of reluctance to run for re-election?); LBJ garnered just over 50% of the Democratic primary votes, in fact more votes as a write-in, than Eugene McCarthy did with his name on the ballot. Yet media & pundit interpreted result as victory for the anti-war challenger . . . as did the President, who announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election shortly afterward.
> My guess is that in 2024, media will be looking at BOTH the Republican and Democratic results of the venerable New Hampshire presidential primary. Which has been having an impact on national politics since (even before) Estes Kefauver scored his shock victory over Harry Truman in early 1952.
> For Joe Biden, reckon the Magic Number for him in New Hampshire next week, is same as for Donald Trump in Iowa this week = better 50% of votes cast in his party's race; the higher, the better-er.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ffqm-ICdgk
In 1997 Labour led 41-36 in over-65s, but this YouGov has Labour behind 29-36 with the same age group - and RefUK on 20.
On the Tory shares - they're the same! This is actually a little bit surprising. I'd assumed the Tory share now would be higher than then. I still think it's a bit baffling. Putting aside partisan considerations, I think the government of the last five years has been more shambolic than 1992-7. Particularly the events of 2022. But it does somewhat kibosh the hypothesis I'd floated that the oldies were favouring incumbents more than in the past.
But the big difference is the Labour shares. On the face of it there's a lot of missing Labour voters who are voting RefUK.
The Scottish system smelt a rat earlier but the PO still kept swearing blind all was well. The LA has apologised.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/16/post-office-horizon-scandal-scotlands-top-prosecutor-apologises-profusely-to-victims
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/about-copfs/news/lord-advocate-s-statement-to-the-scottish-parliament-on-post-office-horizon-it-prosecutions/
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1747795032327766047
explains what the legal system's faults were - judges had to apply the law the MPs made, they do not control disclosure and they had no control over the Post Office's prosecution decisions. They - along with many others - were lied to.
The judge who accepted the PO's analysis of the contracts and whether they really were posting accounts in the accepted sense such that a false accounting charge could be brought got it wrong. The CCRC also behaved poorly.
But there is a wider point about why it was that no-one was noticing all these prosecutions, the links between them and asking whether this pattern was showing something unusual which needed to be looked into further. That is a good question and one which needs looking at properly and some sensible answers.
(For the avoidance of any doubt, of course the truth is his supporters are 100% behind him regardless of events, and events solidify his support, not that he is a victim)
Regarding Labour, many people are economically liberal but socially conservative. RefUK appeals to those whose social views are more important to them than their economic views. RefUK’s difficulty would be if they were seen to be economically, as well as socially, conservative.
[Just for the record I am a boomer, albeit not one of the 36%]
What isn't at all clear is whether that's enough
to re-elect him.
Netanyahu: "In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea."
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1748045086812692757
This now goes to @POTUS
Government stays open. Shutdown clock resets to March 1 and March 8.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1748102689345397042
Onwards and upwards.
@isam
I suppose it's your last point that I was sketching around. Is there any way for judges to raise a concern, at least in private?