Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory doesn't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
Generally I don't think simple punters or knowledgable pundits and internet wonks have that great a track record when it comes to predicting what will happen as compared to the average clueless member of the electorate.
Sure, we have had some modest surprises and some chaotic times, but usually it is pretty basic or even obvious. Going with a gut feeling of whether it feels like the public want/do not want change won't be right every time, but it'll probably be right just as often as nerds like us obsessing over twists and turns and improbable scenarios.
Just look at election night at a predictable election, overreacting to every minor detail, because we have to get entertainment from it somehow.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
Yes. We’re predisposed to look for the next plot twist after everything since at least 2010 (before which there was much discussion about how unlikely a coalition scenario was). Perhaps, instead, we’re about to live in…. precedented times.
On Thursday, March 19, 2020, Ms Sturgeon purchased a Nokia mobile phone from Amazon for £18.16. Devices available for a similar price are 2G only, although texts, WhatsApps and emails should still go through without any large attachments. The then first minister also purchased £18 worth of SIM card top-ups.
That drawer full of burners that Jax had in Sons of Anarchy.... all the flip phones.....
I was just musing on what I would do if I wanted a true burner phone. Can you still buy a pay as you go device in cash from a phone store? Can you top them up with a single use Visa card/voucher?
Yes to both.
But your secrecy problems have just started.
... If not worsened. It's a bit like having an ultra-secure, ad-blocking, cookiie-blocking, javascript-blocking browser.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
'My confidence in Harvard leadership’s ability and will to confront anti-semitism and the demonization of Israel continues to decline. Unfortunately, it is becoming ever clearer why Harvard ranks first on anti- semitism, even as it ranks last on upholding free speech.
Confronting anti-semitism does not mean punishing offensive speech as some suggest. Free speech is sacrosanct in a university.
But effective leadership does involve assuring the appropriateness of speech made by the university and its subunits and it means encouraging speech that counters prejudice and balances debate.
The executive board of Harvard’s Center for Middle East Studies, acting for the Center, not in their individual capacities, has endorsed a statement demonizing Israel.
There is nothing wrong with anyone in the University taking this position or any other position. That is academic freedom.
It should not be possible and would not be possible if race or gender issues were involved, for a center that proudly uses the Harvard name to support research and debate to take a position that so many see as prejudiced.
I note Edward Said’s intellectual heir, Rashid Khalidi, who many see as anti-semitic has been invited twice since October 7 to speak at the University. Everyone should be free to speak or invite speakers.
I also note with disappointment, but not actually surprise, that to my knowledge Harvard has not had speakers like Dennis Ross or Bret Stephens who take pro-Israel positions. With all the rhetoric about open dialogue and debate, it is remarkable that in Harvard College there is no yet announced dialogue or debate on any Middle East or diversity related issue.
Nor am I aware, even after the events of last fall, of any new initiatives directed at education on anti-semitism or the Holocaust. There has been no public discussion of Harvard’s past collaboration with German Nazi controlled universities, Jewish quotas or the more recent discrimination against Israeli students.
......I hope I will be proven wrong. Harvard interim president Alan Garber has a powerful intellect and a strong moral compass. I hope he will not let an excessive desire for comity prevent him from acting with strength and clarity.
I cannot think of a worse stretch in Harvard history than the last few months. I have no doubt that all members of the Corporation are deeply devoted to Harvard. As the institution’s ultimate fiduciaries, I hope they will take appropriate accountability and enable a restoration of confidence.
The challenges are real but resolvable. Harvard is blessed with an extraordinary collection of students, faculty and staff and abundant resources. The mission of seeking truth and educating leaders has never been more important. This is a moment for wisdom and boldness.'
If the Tories can squeeze DKs and Reform voters they can certainly narrow Starmer's majority, maybe even get a hung parliament but Labour will still likely comfortably win most seats.
OGH I see from spending 2021-22 saying the Tories must get rid of Boris and replace him with Rishi is now saying the Tories should get rid of Rishi too? Does he really think Badenoch or Braverman are going to lead to a surge in Conservative support? Mordaunt might make a fractional difference but no more than that
CON have to stick with Rishi now and see it through to the bitter end if necessary, there is no credible alternative approach.
Truss was bad, and getting ousted is itself proof of being not up to the job, but if they were doing it over again they'd probably be better served toughing it out, especially after she reversed course quickly. The switchover chaos has eclipsed any benefits that may conceivably have been accrued, as he was not as much better as people will have hoped.
On Thursday, March 19, 2020, Ms Sturgeon purchased a Nokia mobile phone from Amazon for £18.16. Devices available for a similar price are 2G only, although texts, WhatsApps and emails should still go through without any large attachments. The then first minister also purchased £18 worth of SIM card top-ups.
That drawer full of burners that Jax had in Sons of Anarchy.... all the flip phones.....
I was just musing on what I would do if I wanted a true burner phone. Can you still buy a pay as you go device in cash from a phone store? Can you top them up with a single use Visa card/voucher?
Yes to both.
But your secrecy problems have just started.
... If not worsened. It's a bit like having an ultra-secure, ad-blocking, cookiie-blocking, javascript-blocking browser.
"Oh, that's unusual .... and trackable."
On a similar note, I have sometimes wondered whether the best move for western governments concerned about cyber defence is to ditch all security classifications so that absolutely no one gaining access to their files has any idea what is important and what is Doris from accounts getting her sums wrong.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
If the Tories can squeeze DKs and Reform voters they can certainly narrow Starmer's majority, maybe even get a hung parliament but Labour will still likely comfortably win most seats.
OGH I see from spending 2021-22 saying the Tories must get rid of Boris and replace him with Rishi is now saying the Tories should get rid of Rishi too? Does he really think Badenoch or Braverman are going to lead to a surge in Conservative support? Mordaunt might make a fractional difference but no more than that
CON have to stick with Rishi now and see it through to the bitter end if necessary, there is no credible alternative approach.
Truss was bad, and getting ousted is itself proof of being not up to the job, but if they were doing it over again they'd probably be better served toughing it out, especially after she reversed course quickly. The switchover chaos has eclipsed any benefits that may conceivably have been accrued, as he was not as much better as people will have hoped.
As many have noted, the people he was most trying to impress on the “stability” stuff were the people who aren’t voting for them anyway. Making the centre left think you’re not bonkers and vaguely respectable doesn’t win a Tory an election. He knows that himself, which is why he’s so crazily over-corrected on Rwanda.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
That's 12 pictures of Sir Keir in a 24 page document, including the cover and the reverse. At least in the branding team they don't see him as a weakness.
There's stern, statesmanlike Keir, Keir greeting a toddler, in army fatigues, talking to old people, wearing glasses with his sleeves rolled up, striding purposefully, wearing hi-viz, looking concerned in a medical setting, with police officers, tieless in an education setting, campaigning, and holding a baby.
I don't know about the policies, but they haven't missed much on the image messaging.
Edit:
Ed M remains the master of the 'I don't like the look of that thing off camera' shots though
Just caught the end of an absolutely incredible interview on NewsNight. I think it was about epilepsy drugs. The lady on there was so upset, I’m sure it will get a lot of attention
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 13h Kellner prefers polls that estimate what don’t knows will do (YouGov MRP, Opinium, Stonehaven), suggesting Labour lead of 13-15 points
Kellner and various swingback pollsters have got themselves into an utter mess.
They conduct a poll that shows Labour 20% ahead, and then on basis of there is always swing-back for full term Tory governments, they take 3% off Labour and add it to the Tory total, and say that is much more realistic.
Problem one they need to explain, in 1997 there was no swing back for the full term Tory government, as they held on to the last minute the result got worse for them. This is because the Tory’s didn’t get 1992 swingback in just the final months of the campaign, such as last minute tax cuts, they earned that bonus based on their record on the economy, law and order, defence, protecting household incomes etc over the previous 10 years. swingback doesn’t just burst forth, it’s earned. Its reputation converted to brownie points. Instead of just expecting it to burst forth, make an assessment of how many brownie points you think have been earned over last 5 years or 10 years or longer of continuous government, to understand if this is a swing back election or non swingback election, or somethings in between.
Problem two they need to explain, votes outside the big 3 of C L and Ld totalled 6% in 97, and 20% or more in today’s polling. So when they move voters from Labour to Tory and call it a reality poll, they are aware there are more than two parties in this election and the polling? In what they call “the reality” figures, have they adjusted 11% for Ref and 8% green, or are these still “pure figures” in the “reality poll” and we are expected to believe that’s the PV? Take 7 or 8 off Ref and give it all to Tory and a 14% Reality Labour lead is just 6% reality lead - for example how daft and detached from current reality Kellner’s Prospect piece is.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
The Labour Party's "Missions Document: Let's Get Britain's Future Back" outlines its key policies and vision ahead of the 2024 election. The document focuses on several national missions and policy areas:
Economic Stability and Fiscal Responsibility: Labour aims to adhere to strict fiscal rules for economic stability. Key initiatives include introducing a fiscal lock, setting up an Office for Value for Money, halving government consultancy spending, and appointing a Covid Corruption Commissioner to pursue fraudulent use of taxpayer money.
Strengthening National Defence: The party is committed to rebuilding the UK's Armed Forces, which they claim have been weakened under Conservative governance. Plans include maintaining a strong NATO commitment, conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review, improving service accommodation, and appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Border Security and Asylum System Reform: Labour plans to tackle issues with the current asylum system and increase border security. This includes strategies to dismantle criminal gangs involved in human trafficking, deploy more police and investigators, set up a Returns Unit for failed asylum seekers, and end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by clearing backlogs.
Energy Policy and Clean Power: The party focuses on transforming the UK into a clean energy superpower. Key policies include establishing Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power generation company, implementing a proper windfall tax on oil and gas companies, investing in clean energy sources and infrastructure, and setting ambitious targets for renewable energy production by 2030.
Infrastructure Development: Labour proposes to boost critical infrastructure projects in energy, transport, and technology. This includes speeding up planning processes for important infrastructure, implementing strategies to engage and benefit local communities, and reforming the planning system to facilitate development.
Environmental and Agricultural Policies: Labour intends to manage and conserve natural environments, improve biodiversity, pass a Clean Air Act, regulate water companies more strictly, set targets to reduce water leaks, and promote sustainable UK farming and animal welfare.
Technology and Economy: The party aims to boost the economy through technology, supporting digital companies and startups, reforming the British Business Bank, developing broadband and 5G technology, and ensuring workers' rights and training in line with technological advancements.
These missions and policies reflect Labour's commitment to a long-term plan for national renewal, focusing on economic growth, environmental sustainability, social welfare, and technological advancement
Just caught the end of an absolutely incredible interview on NewsNight. I think it was about epilepsy drugs. The lady on there was so upset, I’m sure it will get a lot of attention
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
The Labour Party's "Missions Document: Let's Get Britain's Future Back" outlines its key policies and vision ahead of the 2024 election. The document focuses on several national missions and policy areas:
Economic Stability and Fiscal Responsibility: Labour aims to adhere to strict fiscal rules for economic stability. Key initiatives include introducing a fiscal lock, setting up an Office for Value for Money, halving government consultancy spending, and appointing a Covid Corruption Commissioner to pursue fraudulent use of taxpayer money.
Strengthening National Defence: The party is committed to rebuilding the UK's Armed Forces, which they claim have been weakened under Conservative governance. Plans include maintaining a strong NATO commitment, conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review, improving service accommodation, and appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Border Security and Asylum System Reform: Labour plans to tackle issues with the current asylum system and increase border security. This includes strategies to dismantle criminal gangs involved in human trafficking, deploy more police and investigators, set up a Returns Unit for failed asylum seekers, and end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by clearing backlogs.
Energy Policy and Clean Power: The party focuses on transforming the UK into a clean energy superpower. Key policies include establishing Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power generation company, implementing a proper windfall tax on oil and gas companies, investing in clean energy sources and infrastructure, and setting ambitious targets for renewable energy production by 2030.
Infrastructure Development: Labour proposes to boost critical infrastructure projects in energy, transport, and technology. This includes speeding up planning processes for important infrastructure, implementing strategies to engage and benefit local communities, and reforming the planning system to facilitate development.
Environmental and Agricultural Policies: Labour intends to manage and conserve natural environments, improve biodiversity, pass a Clean Air Act, regulate water companies more strictly, set targets to reduce water leaks, and promote sustainable UK farming and animal welfare.
Technology and Economy: The party aims to boost the economy through technology, supporting digital companies and startups, reforming the British Business Bank, developing broadband and 5G technology, and ensuring workers' rights and training in line with technological advancements.
These missions and policies reflect Labour's commitment to a long-term plan for national renewal, focusing on economic growth, environmental sustainability, social welfare, and technological advancement
I asked a follow-up of "would you describe that as radical? transformational? or just a vague continuation of the status quo?"
The Labour Party's "Missions Document: Let's Get Britain's Future Back" can be interpreted differently depending on one's perspective and political viewpoint:
Radical: Some may view the proposals as radical due to their comprehensive nature and significant shifts from current policies. For instance, the establishment of Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean energy company, represents a substantial move away from the current energy market structure. Similarly, the emphasis on a major overhaul in defense, infrastructure development, and the asylum system indicates a departure from the status quo.
Transformational: The document could be seen as transformational, especially in areas like environmental policy and technological advancement. Setting ambitious targets for renewable energy, proposing a Clean Air Act, and focusing on digital transformation and the creation of high-tech industries suggest a transformative vision for the UK's future.
Vague Continuation of the Status Quo: On the other hand, some may argue that the document, while ambitious, lacks detailed implementation plans and specific, measurable goals. This perspective might see the proposals as more of a continuation of the status quo with aspirational goals but without concrete, detailed plans for achieving them. For instance, Labour's plans for economic growth and fiscal responsibility adhere to traditional fiscal rules, which could be interpreted as a continuation of existing economic management approaches.
Ultimately, whether one views the document as radical, transformational, or a vague continuation of the status quo will depend on individual interpretations of the policies and comparisons with existing governmental approaches and policies
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
The Labour Party's "Missions Document: Let's Get Britain's Future Back" outlines its key policies and vision ahead of the 2024 election. The document focuses on several national missions and policy areas:
Economic Stability and Fiscal Responsibility: Labour aims to adhere to strict fiscal rules for economic stability. Key initiatives include introducing a fiscal lock, setting up an Office for Value for Money, halving government consultancy spending, and appointing a Covid Corruption Commissioner to pursue fraudulent use of taxpayer money.
Strengthening National Defence: The party is committed to rebuilding the UK's Armed Forces, which they claim have been weakened under Conservative governance. Plans include maintaining a strong NATO commitment, conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review, improving service accommodation, and appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Border Security and Asylum System Reform: Labour plans to tackle issues with the current asylum system and increase border security. This includes strategies to dismantle criminal gangs involved in human trafficking, deploy more police and investigators, set up a Returns Unit for failed asylum seekers, and end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by clearing backlogs.
Energy Policy and Clean Power: The party focuses on transforming the UK into a clean energy superpower. Key policies include establishing Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power generation company, implementing a proper windfall tax on oil and gas companies, investing in clean energy sources and infrastructure, and setting ambitious targets for renewable energy production by 2030.
Infrastructure Development: Labour proposes to boost critical infrastructure projects in energy, transport, and technology. This includes speeding up planning processes for important infrastructure, implementing strategies to engage and benefit local communities, and reforming the planning system to facilitate development.
Environmental and Agricultural Policies: Labour intends to manage and conserve natural environments, improve biodiversity, pass a Clean Air Act, regulate water companies more strictly, set targets to reduce water leaks, and promote sustainable UK farming and animal welfare.
Technology and Economy: The party aims to boost the economy through technology, supporting digital companies and startups, reforming the British Business Bank, developing broadband and 5G technology, and ensuring workers' rights and training in line with technological advancements.
These missions and policies reflect Labour's commitment to a long-term plan for national renewal, focusing on economic growth, environmental sustainability, social welfare, and technological advancement
Looks like gpt ran out of steam halfway through. Stuff on health, crime, early years, education all missed. It's only 24 pages ffs, and a fair bit is pictures.
A quick note from me on the Mori. LLG is down from Novembers 64 to a mere 63 in both the more recent polls. In other words no change.
Which brings us to what is wrong about Mike’s header, even if the polls do close up between now and the election on May 2nd, this LLG tactically voting will deliver Starmer a strong majority. It’s 60%+ of voters waiting to do bad to Tory candidates everywhere.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
As soon as someone uses the title “Let’s Get Britain’s Future Back”, I am out. This political writing style (they all do it) has to go.
Agree. Nevertheless, there's quite a lot of specific policies in there among the photos of SKS. Which was my point.
It's rarely true I think that a party literally puts out very few policies. They may be deliberately vague on many of them, but so is every party so that's not much of a criticism, and there will be a mixture of minor hobbyhorses and ephemera, broad indications of direction, and some specific reversals of recent unpopular decisions.
How well they have communicated them, or how much anyone has listened, is a different matter. I do feel for them - we are told people want policies, but most don't pay attention outside elections, and we are also told (correctly) that most people don't read manifestos, so parties get very little benefit from developing policy.
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
The Labour Party's "Missions Document: Let's Get Britain's Future Back" outlines its key policies and vision ahead of the 2024 election. The document focuses on several national missions and policy areas:
Economic Stability and Fiscal Responsibility: Labour aims to adhere to strict fiscal rules for economic stability. Key initiatives include introducing a fiscal lock, setting up an Office for Value for Money, halving government consultancy spending, and appointing a Covid Corruption Commissioner to pursue fraudulent use of taxpayer money.
Strengthening National Defence: The party is committed to rebuilding the UK's Armed Forces, which they claim have been weakened under Conservative governance. Plans include maintaining a strong NATO commitment, conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review, improving service accommodation, and appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Border Security and Asylum System Reform: Labour plans to tackle issues with the current asylum system and increase border security. This includes strategies to dismantle criminal gangs involved in human trafficking, deploy more police and investigators, set up a Returns Unit for failed asylum seekers, and end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by clearing backlogs.
Energy Policy and Clean Power: The party focuses on transforming the UK into a clean energy superpower. Key policies include establishing Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power generation company, implementing a proper windfall tax on oil and gas companies, investing in clean energy sources and infrastructure, and setting ambitious targets for renewable energy production by 2030.
Infrastructure Development: Labour proposes to boost critical infrastructure projects in energy, transport, and technology. This includes speeding up planning processes for important infrastructure, implementing strategies to engage and benefit local communities, and reforming the planning system to facilitate development.
Environmental and Agricultural Policies: Labour intends to manage and conserve natural environments, improve biodiversity, pass a Clean Air Act, regulate water companies more strictly, set targets to reduce water leaks, and promote sustainable UK farming and animal welfare.
Technology and Economy: The party aims to boost the economy through technology, supporting digital companies and startups, reforming the British Business Bank, developing broadband and 5G technology, and ensuring workers' rights and training in line with technological advancements.
These missions and policies reflect Labour's commitment to a long-term plan for national renewal, focusing on economic growth, environmental sustainability, social welfare, and technological advancement
Looks like gpt ran out of steam halfway through. Stuff on health, crime, early years, education all missed. It's only 24 pages ffs, and a fair bit is pictures.
I ran out of steam on the first page - so I don't blame it.
Just caught the end of an absolutely incredible interview on NewsNight. I think it was about epilepsy drugs. The lady on there was so upset, I’m sure it will get a lot of attention
Depends on whether the other Newsnight viewer is on Twitter.
Just caught the end of an absolutely incredible interview on NewsNight. I think it was about epilepsy drugs. The lady on there was so upset, I’m sure it will get a lot of attention
Sodium Valporate.
Yet another health scandal.
Akin to the thalidomide problem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-64709971.amp "...Baroness Cumberlege, who led a lengthy review into sodium valproate and two other medical interventions, previously said it was not known how many children had been affected by the drug, but said 20,000 was a "reasonable estimate". Ms McNamara continued: "Trying to get compensation has been like banging your head against a brick wall with the government, they've not wanted to listen. "[My children] are going to struggle to lead an independent life and will need support growing up and into their later years, it's not something that's going to away."..
There was a File on 4 report on the BBC last summer about it.
Just caught the end of an absolutely incredible interview on NewsNight. I think it was about epilepsy drugs. The lady on there was so upset, I’m sure it will get a lot of attention
Sodium Valporate.
Yet another health scandal.
Akin to the thalidomide problem. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-64709971.amp "...Baroness Cumberlege, who led a lengthy review into sodium valproate and two other medical interventions, previously said it was not known how many children had been affected by the drug, but said 20,000 was a "reasonable estimate". Ms McNamara continued: "Trying to get compensation has been like banging your head against a brick wall with the government, they've not wanted to listen. "[My children] are going to struggle to lead an independent life and will need support growing up and into their later years, it's not something that's going to away."..
There was a File on 4 report on the BBC last summer about it.
Every time. It is the same. Years of trying to get the record put straight and compensation paid etc etc...
Looks like gpt ran out of steam halfway through. Stuff on health, crime, early years, education all missed. It's only 24 pages ffs, and a fair bit is pictures.
I ran out of steam on the first page - so I don't blame it.
The Conservative Manifesto in 2019 was by far the shortest of the UK main parties (the SNP's was shorter but was not relevant to me so I did not read it), with Labour's being the longest at over 100 pages, so short is clearly the way to go.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
Just been reminded that the Green Party's 2019 manifesto had a great big question on the front cover: "If not now, when?" I maintain it is always a bad idea to have a question be part of your marketing for an election, as if you do badly it is very easy to mock.
They still earned points for both hyperlinking to the sections in the document and including a 'how it all adds up' section
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
We will need more kids? Definitely time to bring back Boris.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
I dare say it's inevitably going to happen, though if memory serves we aren't projected to actually reduce in size until the latter half of the century.
I recall seeing some articles on a Japanese town which, very much against the trend, happens to have a high birthrate. I guess everyone who wanted a larger family decided to move there?
Like others, I'm not convinced Labour will sail to victory. And yet there have been 18 polls so far this year, with Labour's lead ranging from a low of 13.5 to a high of 27 points. And then there were all those in 2023; I don't believe Labour's lead was in single figures in any of those.
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory don't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
At the moment, the polling is between the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular and Labour who essentially have a blank sheet of paper.
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
If you are doing political betting on seat totals, tactical voting from a bloated 60%+ LLG ensures Starmer a large majority regardless what narrowing of the margin from here and universal seat calculators suggests - hold your nerve on Starmer’s landslide majority if it starts to get tight.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
I dare say it's inevitably going to happen, though if memory serves we aren't projected to actually reduce in size until the latter half of the century.
I recall seeing some articles on a Japanese town which, very much against the trend, happens to have a high birthrate. I guess everyone who wanted a larger family decided to move there?
Right, so this one town pays 100,000 yen for each child born. That's not much (my town paid me 400,000 yen in septic tank subsidies) but it's better than nothing all things being equal and it sends a signal. I don't suppose it would work if everyone did it.
Also it's pretty far south, for some reason southern parts of Japan have much higher birth rates than the north.
It’s becoming clearer everyday the election is May 2nd.
Give us a majority to “get Rwanda done” doesn’t have quite the zing of “Get Brexit Done” of the last election, but from when they decided on May 2nd back last autumn, everything said and done since on Rwanda and boats policy wasn’t about getting planes in the air before the election, but all about being able to point out how they have been thwarted by people with zero plans to Stop The Boats or cut net migration.
Ditto the brought forward tax cuts to today are the last in pay packet tax cuts this side of polling day, and the last you will receive for quite a few years.
The Tory re-election campaign is clear in front our eyes as a “get rawanda done” “get tax cuts done” pitch of hope and promise. Being thwarted on getting planes in the air, and having opponents promising to reverse tax cuts in the budget, is far far more potent to a Tory campaign than actual planes in the air whilst the boat arrivals ramp up.
”I shouldn't have to face my little girl in that bed every day fighting for her life"
All four of Karen Buck's children were born with disabilities after she was prescribed sodium valproate whilst pregnant. She tells #Newsnight how difficult life is for her and her children.
Sir Kier does not look very happy in the photo on the cover of that Labour Policy Document.
I'd punt for "kid about to be made to eat Ready Brek". I much prefer this photo of a famous cycling pussycat "Sigrid" at an event last weekend to celebrate Westminster's first cycle hangar suitable for non-standard cycles (eg trikes used by disabled people), who looks far more judicial than Sir Kier - just like Rumpole of the Bailey.
I mean opinion pollsters have been overestimating Labour's polling share (versus the Tories) in UK general elections since at least the 1987 general election...
That said,, obliviously Labour are going to win the next general election and Sir Kier WILL be the next Prime Minister after Rishi Rich... Probably with a majority of around 1-20 seats, and then the fun will REALLY begin!
Today (31st Jan) is, I believe, the last day of Camelot running the National Lottery before the baton is passed from one foreign-owned operator to another. Well, it wouldn't be right to keep the profits in this country.
”I shouldn't have to face my little girl in that bed every day fighting for her life"
All four of Karen Buck's children were born with disabilities after she was prescribed sodium valproate whilst pregnant. She tells #Newsnight how difficult life is for her and her children.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
I think 0.5M+ net immigration will continue for a while. The English language, and our relative closeness to North Africa, middle east and so forth will continue to make us attractive as a destination for a good while yet. Also our TFr whilst below 2.2 is substantially above Korea. So we should have relatively more children
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
O/T, I see Lord Cameron has been stirring the pot again with his comments on recognising a Palestinian state.
I really do not know what people see in him. I dealt with him when he was Investor Relations at Carlton TV and he was totally useless and thick as pig sh1t. He was a laughing stock amongst the financial community for just how clueless he was.
(Snip)
Perhaps it's the only sort of message that Israel (well, Bibi...) might listen to?
Members of the House of Lords’ European affairs committee have described ministers’ failure to spend the money on Ukraine “incomprehensible”, nearly two years after the sale was agreed...
It's in Labour's interests to maintain the 'too close to call' line right up to the election.
Mandelson is advising Starmer regularly and nothing he says can be interpreted as the comments of a neutral bystander.
He's worried about turnout.
I’m sticking by my Tory majority of around 20 call. Maybe a hung Parliament.
I hope you're wrong, and I'm predicting a large Labour victory (the two views are not unconnected).
The Conservatives deserve a long period out of power. In fact, the Conservatives *need* a long period out of power.
Yes, I know the precedents are against Labour: they have a mountain to climb in order to get a majority, let alone a large one. But the Conservatives are Labour's best helpers at the moment, removing millions of tonnes of stone from that mountain with every policy announcement; a couple of metres every time Dorries opens her mouth; a massive chunk every time Jacob Rees-Worm appears on our screens.
It's in Labour's interests to maintain the 'too close to call' line right up to the election.
Mandelson is advising Starmer regularly and nothing he says can be interpreted as the comments of a neutral bystander.
He's worried about turnout.
Looking at electoral history, the biggest predictor of a low turnout is that the election is a foregone conclusion. That doesn't necessarily favour the Tories though. The lowest turnout GE in recent times was 2001, with Labour having a massive majority.
It's in Labour's interests to maintain the 'too close to call' line right up to the election.
Mandelson is advising Starmer regularly and nothing he says can be interpreted as the comments of a neutral bystander.
He's worried about turnout.
I’m sticking by my Tory majority of around 20 call. Maybe a hung Parliament.
I think Labour will win very comfortably.
CR; this morning I've just started reading 'Casino Royale'. I'd thought I'd read it before when I was a kid 35 or 40 years ago, but it seems so unfamiliar that perhaps I hadn't. I'm enjoying it so far, though.
The met’s response. She’s discussing it with her boss. People are being mean about her and they’re keeping an eye on those comments.
Clowns.
The Met have totally lost the plot.
They need to be given the RUC treatment, disband them completely and start again with a new management team. Probably best to split off the national roles at the same time into another new group, make the new London force (force, not service) considerably smaller.
More right leaning betters kissing their rabbit feet, spinning around 7 times, knocking on wood, throwing salt over their shoulder, doing incantations.. I.e. magical thinking to explain why the numbers aren't the numbers 🙄🙄🙄 that splinter of ice in the heart that I thought political betters had... yeah that is a myth.
I am sceptical that a lot of the 2019 Tory vote are going to switch from DK to Tory during the campaign.
There has been a lot of churn over recent elections, particularly Red Wall to Con, and Blue Wall to Lab/Lib in the clichés of our time.
So the 2019 Tory vote included a lot of recent converts. These are not lifelong Tory voters saying DK. They probably voted Lab in 2015 and 2017.
Or even not at all. I think there's a decent slice of voters who voted Leave in 2016, Boris in 2019 and that's about it. There won't be much on offer for them in 2024, and many will return to the habit of a lifetime.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's in Labour's interests to maintain the 'too close to call' line right up to the election.
Mandelson is advising Starmer regularly and nothing he says can be interpreted as the comments of a neutral bystander.
He's worried about turnout.
I’m sticking by my Tory majority of around 20 call. Maybe a hung Parliament.
Jesus, that’s bold. You’d need Refuk to get next to nothing and that won’t happen with Sunak as leader.
If we’re making predictions, I think there’s alot of bedwetting going on. There is a mood for change in the country. I hear it at work, I hear it from friends and family and I hear it in the local. it’s visible in real elections. Now I get that a lot of 2019 Tories may be IDK. But their vote will go all ways, including to can’t be arsed at all.
I cannot not see a Labour majority. The Tories will do Ok in the midlands, but nowhere else. Lab maj of at least 60.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childrearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
I don't think we are, not even under Sunaks Tories!
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
I wasn't suggesting it was simple though - an issue where different people will come to different conclusions. However I am wary of the narrative that low birth rates are caused by gender inequality.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
It's in Labour's interests to maintain the 'too close to call' line right up to the election.
Mandelson is advising Starmer regularly and nothing he says can be interpreted as the comments of a neutral bystander.
He's worried about turnout.
I’m sticking by my Tory majority of around 20 call. Maybe a hung Parliament.
I think Labour will win very comfortably.
When Truss comes back the Tories suddenly have a leader with ideas that will show up Starmer for the empty vessel he is. Sure, Sunak and Johnson have caused some damage even Truss can’t fix, but she will bring back all the Reform vote and a very significant proportion of the Labour vote. She is the natural leader of the natural party of government with the bold vision were belatedly coming to see ourselves.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
I don't think we are, not even under Sunaks Tories!
You are right. 70 million is only six million more.
Anyway the point is, we do not need to panic about a declining population just yet.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's had to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
On a personal note I am in my 40s and a lot of my friends/colleagues I know of a similar age don't have children. Time is passing and it just isn't going to happen for a lot of them. I don't really see any drive to do it.
I would also observe that many of the people I have met over the years through football and school who had children in their 20's seemed to end up in all sorts of problems with relationship breakdowns, family court issues etc.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's hard to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
My wife was almost exactly 30.9 when we had our first. Although as I'm a couple of months younger than her I guess I was younger than average as a first time dad. We still had time to knock out three. I think we both wish sometimes we'd had another one, but at the time it seemed like a lot of work! It was appreciably more effort at 37 than at 30, certainly. Still, in lots of ways the happiest time.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's hard to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
Housing theory of everything strikes again.
Partly psychological- it's harder to build a nest if it isn't your forever tree.
But mostly financial. If you are paying the 2024 going rate for your home, another mouth to feed is too expensive and not having two earners unimaginable.
Starmer has at least identified that as the problem, it remains to be seen if he can navigate the issues.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
I don't think we are, not even under Sunaks Tories!
You are right. 70 million is only six million more.
2036 not 2026 in that ONS projection, and with 2021 as a start date:
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
I don't think we are, not even under Sunaks Tories!
You are right. 70 million is only six million more.
Anyway the point is, we do not need to panic about a declining population just yet.
The whole thing is a bit unsatisfactory and conceptualises societies as Ponzi schemes dependent on ever-increasing populations.
That's why I said; "Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects."
Sinn Fein claims Irish reunification ‘within touching distance’ after DUP ends Stormont deadlock
Deal with unionists will lead to reopening of Northern Ireland's parliament, which will have a nationalist first minister
The reunification of Ireland is within “touching distance”, Sinn Fein has claimed, after the DUP ended its two-year boycott of Stormont over post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, announced the party executive had accepted Rishi Sunak’s Irish Sea border offer in the early hours of Tuesday after a turbulent five-hour meeting, which exposed deep divisions among unionists.
It paves the way for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the coming days, which has been mothballed since the DUP walked out of a power-sharing deal in February 2022 that was intended to help maintain peace in the province.
Stormont’s return means that Michelle O’Neill will become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's hard to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
Housing theory of everything strikes again.
Partly psychological- it's harder to build a nest if it isn't your forever tree.
But mostly financial. If you are paying the 2024 going rate for your home, another mouth to feed is too expensive and not having two earners unimaginable.
Starmer has at least identified that as the problem, it remains to be seen if he can navigate the issues.
No, it's more complicated than that. Even those who can afford a house in their twenties (either due to family money, or living in a place with cheap housing) do not have children in the numbers that were normal 50 years ago.
People want an extended childhood at university and a decade of nights out before they decide to settle down. Certainly both my boys fit this stereotype, much as I love them!
I predict there will be a whole lot of people reflecting that it was 'obvious' Labour would get a significant majority after such a long period of 10-30 point polling leads, given a tired and unpopular government led by someone who has poor political instincts.
The contrarian view (hung parliament or very small majority) is possible, but so is the Tories being reduced to 100 or so seats. FPTP has certain 'tipping points' as we've seen in the past in Scotland with SNP domination in seats with a plurality of the vote.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
We do not have a declining population. We are due to add 10 million people in two years.
I don't think we are, not even under Sunaks Tories!
You are right. 70 million is only six million more.
Anyway the point is, we do not need to panic about a declining population just yet.
The whole thing is a bit unsatisfactory and conceptualises societies as Ponzi schemes dependent on ever-increasing populations.
That's why I said; "Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects."
This is the ONS's own blog about population forecasts.
Throughout 2024 we will, as usual, be releasing new data on a range of areas which will in some form contribute towards the development of assumptions for population projections. We will use these statistics, along with expert advice, to develop new assumptions for all components of population change (fertility, migration and mortality) with a mid-2022 base. That projections release is planned for October or November 2024. It will also use census data for Scotland, as well as the latest data on international migration.
Sinn Fein claims Irish reunification ‘within touching distance’ after DUP ends Stormont deadlock
Deal with unionists will lead to reopening of Northern Ireland's parliament, which will have a nationalist first minister
The reunification of Ireland is within “touching distance”, Sinn Fein has claimed, after the DUP ended its two-year boycott of Stormont over post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, announced the party executive had accepted Rishi Sunak’s Irish Sea border offer in the early hours of Tuesday after a turbulent five-hour meeting, which exposed deep divisions among unionists.
It paves the way for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the coming days, which has been mothballed since the DUP walked out of a power-sharing deal in February 2022 that was intended to help maintain peace in the province.
Stormont’s return means that Michelle O’Neill will become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.
I am sceptical that a lot of the 2019 Tory vote are going to switch from DK to Tory during the campaign.
There has been a lot of churn over recent elections, particularly Red Wall to Con, and Blue Wall to Lab/Lib in the clichés of our time.
So the 2019 Tory vote included a lot of recent converts. These are not lifelong Tory voters saying DK. They probably voted Lab in 2015 and 2017.
Indeed. The Tory desperation to imagine this vote is theirs is quite sweet to watch. Deluded, but sweet. Same with the 2m expats who for the European ones at least have had their lives screwed by the Tories.
There is real, visceral anger out there. Being fanned by social media and GBeebies and reactionary gobshites like Fox. The reason why the Tory "Labour have no plan, back to square one" spin lines are so funny is that the *Tories* have no plan and can't move any policy from square one.
The Nigel shows every sign of his intention to be stepping up and leading the FUKer campaign. That adds 5% to their total and seals the lid on that Tory demolition.
We talk about the LLG block who will vote to Get The Tories Out. Combine them together. For Con / ReFUK / ReRacist the opposite is true. The bigger the block score - with the Tories not gaining the growth - the more seats the Tories lose.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's had to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
On a personal note I am in my 40s and a lot of my friends/colleagues I know of a similar age don't have children. Time is passing and it just isn't going to happen for a lot of them. I don't really see any drive to do it.
I would also observe that many of the people I have met over the years through football and school who had children in their 20's seemed to end up in all sorts of problems with relationship breakdowns, family court issues etc.
Yes, many friends are still unmarried in their 40s.
My wife and I were both 37 when we married, and I think there’s a perception that conceiving is still easy at that age. It’s really not, and it didn’t happen for us.
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years. Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
The way to deal with it is to encourage people to have more children.
You need to encourage *women* to have more children. After all, it's their choice.
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Finland has a fertility rate of 1.37 per woman in contrast to the UK which is 1.56 - yet Finland does most or all the things you are prescribing as the solution, and has done for generations. Looking at a list of fertility rates by nation, you can draw your own conclusions about the link between gender rights and fertility.
It's not so simple as that, for example Iran (not noted for gender rights!) has had a massive drop in fertility rate too.
We have societies where childbearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
(I think you mean "childrearing"?)
Yes, I edited it, but child bearing is a key part of rearing!
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
If you start at that age it's hard to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
Housing theory of everything strikes again.
Partly psychological- it's harder to build a nest if it isn't your forever tree.
But mostly financial. If you are paying the 2024 going rate for your home, another mouth to feed is too expensive and not having two earners unimaginable.
Starmer has at least identified that as the problem, it remains to be seen if he can navigate the issues.
No, it's more complicated than that. Even those who can afford a house in their twenties (either due to family money, or living in a place with cheap housing) do not have children in the numbers that were normal 50 years ago.
People want an extended childhood at university and a decade of nights out before they decide to settle down. Certainly both my boys fit this stereotype, much as I love them!
It isn't just nights out though, I think it is more that life offers vast opportunities (that did not exist until very recently) and having children severely limits the pursuit of these.
Sinn Fein claims Irish reunification ‘within touching distance’ after DUP ends Stormont deadlock
Deal with unionists will lead to reopening of Northern Ireland's parliament, which will have a nationalist first minister
The reunification of Ireland is within “touching distance”, Sinn Fein has claimed, after the DUP ended its two-year boycott of Stormont over post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, announced the party executive had accepted Rishi Sunak’s Irish Sea border offer in the early hours of Tuesday after a turbulent five-hour meeting, which exposed deep divisions among unionists.
It paves the way for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the coming days, which has been mothballed since the DUP walked out of a power-sharing deal in February 2022 that was intended to help maintain peace in the province.
Stormont’s return means that Michelle O’Neill will become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.
The Tory moron machine in full force. They tell the DUP that the Windsor Framework will be substantially amended to ensure Ulster stays British They tell the Brexiteer 5 Lunatic Asylums that their hard-fought Brexit freedoms haven't been betrayed. They tell the EU that Britain hasn't made substantive changes to the Windsor Framework.
Its a lie. All 3 cannot be true. But they are saying it anyway. And demand that people believe them.
How many months since the Rishi was parading the now discarded Windsor Framework as a huge triumph of his will?
Sinn Fein claims Irish reunification ‘within touching distance’ after DUP ends Stormont deadlock
Deal with unionists will lead to reopening of Northern Ireland's parliament, which will have a nationalist first minister
The reunification of Ireland is within “touching distance”, Sinn Fein has claimed, after the DUP ended its two-year boycott of Stormont over post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, announced the party executive had accepted Rishi Sunak’s Irish Sea border offer in the early hours of Tuesday after a turbulent five-hour meeting, which exposed deep divisions among unionists.
It paves the way for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the coming days, which has been mothballed since the DUP walked out of a power-sharing deal in February 2022 that was intended to help maintain peace in the province.
Stormont’s return means that Michelle O’Neill will become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.
Gives me an excuse to publish one of my favourite opening paragraphs from PB.
Much like getting your girlfriend pregnant on a pull out sofa there’s a deep sense of irony that the Conservative & Unionist Party, aided and abetted by the DUP, have via Brexit done more to weaken Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom than the IRA.
Comments
https://x.com/hoffman_noa/status/1752293483220533642?s=46
If the electorate is as volatile as some believe, the incredibly consistent polling pointing to a Labour victory doesn't bear that out. Maybe we're making it more complicated than it really is. The Tories are deeply unpopular. And, despite all the negativity on here, plenty of people think Starmer may be an okay or better PM.
Sure, we have had some modest surprises and some chaotic times, but usually it is pretty basic or even obvious. Going with a gut feeling of whether it feels like the public want/do not want change won't be right every time, but it'll probably be right just as often as nerds like us obsessing over twists and turns and improbable scenarios.
Just look at election night at a predictable election, overreacting to every minor detail, because we have to get entertainment from it somehow.
"Oh, that's unusual .... and trackable."
As the election draws closer they are going to have to start filling that in (even if they are super cautious, they still have to offer some policies). When they do that, that will offer opportunities for other parties to start attacking them and eat into that polling lead.
https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1752264423727894838
'My confidence in Harvard leadership’s ability and will to confront anti-semitism and the demonization of Israel continues to decline. Unfortunately, it is becoming ever clearer why Harvard ranks first on anti- semitism, even as it ranks last on upholding free speech.
Confronting anti-semitism does not mean punishing offensive speech as some suggest. Free speech is sacrosanct in a university.
But effective leadership does involve assuring the appropriateness of speech made by the university and its subunits and it means encouraging speech that counters prejudice and balances debate.
The executive board of Harvard’s Center for Middle East Studies, acting for the Center, not in their individual capacities, has endorsed a statement demonizing Israel.
There is nothing wrong with anyone in the University taking this position or any other position. That is academic freedom.
It should not be possible and would not be possible if race or gender issues were involved, for a center that proudly uses the Harvard name to support research and debate to take a position that so many see as prejudiced.
I note Edward Said’s intellectual heir, Rashid Khalidi, who many see as anti-semitic has been invited twice since October 7 to speak at the University. Everyone should be free to speak or invite speakers.
I also note with disappointment, but not actually surprise, that to my knowledge Harvard has not had speakers like Dennis Ross or Bret Stephens who take pro-Israel positions. With all the rhetoric about open dialogue and debate, it is remarkable that in Harvard College there is no yet announced dialogue or debate on any Middle East or diversity related issue.
Nor am I aware, even after the events of last fall, of any new initiatives directed at education on anti-semitism or the Holocaust. There has been no public discussion of Harvard’s past collaboration with German Nazi controlled universities, Jewish quotas or the more recent discrimination against Israeli students.
......I hope I will be proven wrong. Harvard interim president Alan Garber has a powerful intellect and a strong moral compass. I hope he will not let an excessive desire for comity prevent him from acting with strength and clarity.
I cannot think of a worse stretch in Harvard history than the last few months. I have no doubt that all members of the Corporation are deeply devoted to Harvard. As the institution’s ultimate fiduciaries, I hope they will take appropriate accountability and enable a restoration of confidence.
The challenges are real but resolvable. Harvard is blessed with an extraordinary collection of students, faculty and staff and abundant resources. The mission of seeking truth and educating leaders has never been more important. This is a moment for wisdom and boldness.'
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missions-Document-Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf
There's stern, statesmanlike Keir, Keir greeting a toddler, in army fatigues, talking to old people, wearing glasses with his sleeves rolled up, striding purposefully, wearing hi-viz, looking concerned in a medical setting, with police officers, tieless in an education setting, campaigning, and holding a baby.
I don't know about the policies, but they haven't missed much on the image messaging.
Edit:
Ed M remains the master of the 'I don't like the look of that thing off camera' shots though
They conduct a poll that shows Labour 20% ahead, and then on basis of there is always swing-back for full term Tory governments, they take 3% off Labour and add it to the Tory total, and say that is much more realistic.
Problem one they need to explain, in 1997 there was no swing back for the full term Tory government, as they held on to the last minute the result got worse for them. This is because the Tory’s didn’t get 1992 swingback in just the final months of the campaign, such as last minute tax cuts, they earned that bonus based on their record on the economy, law and order, defence, protecting household incomes etc over the previous 10 years. swingback doesn’t just burst forth, it’s earned. Its reputation converted to brownie points. Instead of just expecting it to burst forth, make an assessment of how many brownie points you think have been earned over last 5 years or 10 years or longer of continuous government, to understand if this is a swing back election or non swingback election, or somethings in between.
Problem two they need to explain, votes outside the big 3 of C L and Ld totalled 6% in 97, and 20% or more in today’s polling. So when they move voters from Labour to Tory and call it a reality poll, they are aware there are more than two parties in this election and the polling? In what they call “the reality” figures, have they adjusted 11% for Ref and 8% green, or are these still “pure figures” in the “reality poll” and we are expected to believe that’s the PV? Take 7 or 8 off Ref and give it all to Tory and a 14% Reality Labour lead is just 6% reality lead - for example how daft and detached from current reality Kellner’s Prospect piece is.
Yet another health scandal.
It's only 24 pages ffs, and a fair bit is pictures.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-jeane-freeman-purchased-32005597
Which brings us to what is wrong about Mike’s header, even if the polls do close up between now and the election on May 2nd, this LLG tactically voting will deliver Starmer a strong majority. It’s 60%+ of voters waiting to do bad to Tory candidates everywhere.
How well they have communicated them, or how much anyone has listened, is a different matter. I do feel for them - we are told people want policies, but most don't pay attention outside elections, and we are also told (correctly) that most people don't read manifestos, so parties get very little benefit from developing policy.
It's only 24 pages ffs, and a fair bit is pictures.
I ran out of steam on the first page - so I don't blame it.
Johnson: "I can't keep away from the cheese and chorizo of an evening after a few glasses of claret."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-64709971.amp
"...Baroness Cumberlege, who led a lengthy review into sodium valproate and two other medical interventions, previously said it was not known how many children had been affected by the drug, but said 20,000 was a "reasonable estimate".
Ms McNamara continued: "Trying to get compensation has been like banging your head against a brick wall with the government, they've not wanted to listen.
"[My children] are going to struggle to lead an independent life and will need support growing up and into their later years, it's not something that's going to away."..
There was a File on 4 report on the BBC last summer about it.
One-third of daycare centers, kindergartens to close by 2028 due to low birthrate
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=367888
We should be watching to see how they deal with it; it's not impossible that we start going the same way in a few years.
Assuming the high levels of immigration don't continue forever.
They still earned points for both hyperlinking to the sections in the document and including a 'how it all adds up' section
I recall seeing some articles on a Japanese town which, very much against the trend, happens to have a high birthrate. I guess everyone who wanted a larger family decided to move there?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest
Leap day should be on 31st June instead of 29th February.
Surprising. 🙄
Also it's pretty far south, for some reason southern parts of Japan have much higher birth rates than the north.
Give us a majority to “get Rwanda done” doesn’t have quite the zing of “Get Brexit Done” of the last election, but from when they decided on May 2nd back last autumn, everything said and done since on Rwanda and boats policy wasn’t about getting planes in the air before the election, but all about being able to point out how they have been thwarted by people with zero plans to Stop The Boats or cut net migration.
Ditto the brought forward tax cuts to today are the last in pay packet tax cuts this side of polling day, and the last you will receive for quite a few years.
The Tory re-election campaign is clear in front our eyes as a “get rawanda done” “get tax cuts done” pitch of hope and promise. Being thwarted on getting planes in the air, and having opponents promising to reverse tax cuts in the budget, is far far more potent to a Tory campaign than actual planes in the air whilst the boat arrivals ramp up.
All four of Karen Buck's children were born with disabilities after she was prescribed sodium valproate whilst pregnant. She tells #Newsnight how difficult life is for her and her children.
https://x.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1752476461829648518?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I'd punt for "kid about to be made to eat Ready Brek".
I much prefer this photo of a famous cycling pussycat "Sigrid" at an event last weekend to celebrate Westminster's first cycle hangar suitable for non-standard cycles (eg trikes used by disabled people), who looks far more judicial than Sir Kier - just like Rumpole of the Bailey.
That said,, obliviously Labour are going to win the next general election and Sir Kier WILL be the next Prime Minister after Rishi Rich... Probably with a majority of around 1-20 seats, and then the fun will REALLY begin!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
BlackBeltBarrister"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naCHVg1QEow
Also our TFr whilst below 2.2 is substantially above Korea. So we should have relatively more children
And you don't do that by trying to go back to the norms of the 1950s, or treat them as baby-making factories. So you make it possible for them to have successful careers *and* kids; and that means that men have to do their duty as well. Try to reduce financial penalties for having more kids; make schools and schooling more flexible (*); help payments with nursery places. Make absent dads pay through the nose (though this alone produces a lot more difficulties).
Having more children isn't just a personal thing; it's a societal thing. It doesn't matter what we do to encourage women to have more children, if society does not value the children or women. From what I've read, this is part of the problem Korea faces.
Or perhaps we should choose to manage a declining birthrate, and a declining population. That's another choice, but not one I've given much thought to about the resultant political or societal effects.
(*) Teachers will not like this.
Or perhaps not...
Besides, Cameron's probably correct.
"Elon Musk: Judge blocks 'unfathomable' $56bn Tesla pay deal"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68150306
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/31/incomprehensible-roman-abramovich-chelsea-proceeds-still-not-spent-to-help-ukraine
...Peers have criticised the UK government for failing to agree a deal with the former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich to spend £2.5bn from his sale of the London football club.
Members of the House of Lords’ European affairs committee have described ministers’ failure to spend the money on Ukraine “incomprehensible”, nearly two years after the sale was agreed...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67958136
"None of the officers faced a misconduct hearing but a student officer who reported them was later dismissed."
He's worried about turnout.
The Conservatives deserve a long period out of power. In fact, the Conservatives *need* a long period out of power.
Yes, I know the precedents are against Labour: they have a mountain to climb in order to get a majority, let alone a large one. But the Conservatives are Labour's best helpers at the moment, removing millions of tonnes of stone from that mountain with every policy announcement; a couple of metres every time Dorries opens her mouth; a massive chunk every time Jacob Rees-Worm appears on our screens.
There has been a lot of churn over recent elections, particularly Red Wall to Con, and Blue Wall to Lab/Lib in the clichés of our time.
So the 2019 Tory vote included a lot of recent converts. These are not lifelong Tory voters saying DK. They probably voted Lab in 2015 and 2017.
Clowns.
What have you got against clowns?
They need to be given the RUC treatment, disband them completely and start again with a new management team. Probably best to split off the national roles at the same time into another new group, make the new London force (force, not service) considerably smaller.
If we’re making predictions, I think there’s alot of bedwetting going on. There is a mood for change in the country. I hear it at work, I hear it from friends and family and I hear it in the local. it’s visible in real elections. Now I get that a lot of 2019 Tories may be IDK. But their vote will go all ways, including to can’t be arsed at all.
I cannot not see a Labour majority. The Tories will do Ok in the midlands, but nowhere else. Lab maj of at least 60.
We have societies where childrearing is not valued by men at least as much as for women.
How many twenty somethings really want to have kids, male or female?
It's why the average age of mothers having their first child is 30.9 and for fathers 33.7 years:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2021#:~:text=1.,fathers remained at 33.7 years
If you start at that age it's hard to have a big family.
We now treat teenagers as children and twenty-somethings as teenagers compared to 50 years ago.
You are right. 70 million is only six million more.
Anyway the point is, we do not need to panic about a declining population just yet.
UK population projected to grow to nearly 74m by 2036
Rise of almost 10% over 15 years would see 70m mark passed by 2026, a decade earlier than previously projected
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/uk-population-projected-to-grow-to-nearly-74m-by-2036
The whole thing is a bit unsatisfactory and conceptualises societies as Ponzi schemes dependent on ever-increasing populations.
I would also observe that many of the people I have met over the years through football and school who had children in their 20's seemed to end up in all sorts of problems with relationship breakdowns, family court issues etc.
When the Con campaign is, it seems, going to be largely based on 'Labour might not be any good', you know the Cons are in for a world of pain
Partly psychological- it's harder to build a nest if it isn't your forever tree.
But mostly financial. If you are paying the 2024 going rate for your home, another mouth to feed is too expensive and not having two earners unimaginable.
Starmer has at least identified that as the problem, it remains to be seen if he can navigate the issues.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2021basedinterim
The ONS are anticipating net migration of 315 000 per year in that projection, a significant drop compared to the last 2 years.
Sinn Fein claims Irish reunification ‘within touching distance’ after DUP ends Stormont deadlock
Deal with unionists will lead to reopening of Northern Ireland's parliament, which will have a nationalist first minister
The reunification of Ireland is within “touching distance”, Sinn Fein has claimed, after the DUP ended its two-year boycott of Stormont over post-Brexit trading arrangements.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the DUP, announced the party executive had accepted Rishi Sunak’s Irish Sea border offer in the early hours of Tuesday after a turbulent five-hour meeting, which exposed deep divisions among unionists.
It paves the way for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the coming days, which has been mothballed since the DUP walked out of a power-sharing deal in February 2022 that was intended to help maintain peace in the province.
Stormont’s return means that Michelle O’Neill will become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/30/sinn-fein-irish-reunification-touching-distance-dup-return/
People want an extended childhood at university and a decade of nights out before they decide to settle down. Certainly both my boys fit this stereotype, much as I love them!
The contrarian view (hung parliament or very small majority) is possible, but so is the Tories being reduced to 100 or so seats. FPTP has certain 'tipping points' as we've seen in the past in Scotland with SNP domination in seats with a plurality of the vote.
https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2024/01/30/understanding-our-future-population-why-projections-are-not-predictions/
Throughout 2024 we will, as usual, be releasing new data on a range of areas which will in some form contribute towards the development of assumptions for population projections. We will use these statistics, along with expert advice, to develop new assumptions for all components of population change (fertility, migration and mortality) with a mid-2022 base. That projections release is planned for October or November 2024. It will also use census data for Scotland, as well as the latest data on international migration.
Free the six counties.
There is real, visceral anger out there. Being fanned by social media and GBeebies and reactionary gobshites like Fox. The reason why the Tory "Labour have no plan, back to square one" spin lines are so funny is that the *Tories* have no plan and can't move any policy from square one.
The Nigel shows every sign of his intention to be stepping up and leading the FUKer campaign. That adds 5% to their total and seals the lid on that Tory demolition.
We talk about the LLG block who will vote to Get The Tories Out. Combine them together. For Con / ReFUK / ReRacist the opposite is true. The bigger the block score - with the Tories not gaining the growth - the more seats the Tories lose.
My wife and I were both 37 when we married, and I think there’s a perception that conceiving is still easy at that age. It’s really not, and it didn’t happen for us.
They tell the DUP that the Windsor Framework will be substantially amended to ensure Ulster stays British
They tell the Brexiteer 5 Lunatic Asylums that their hard-fought Brexit freedoms haven't been betrayed.
They tell the EU that Britain hasn't made substantive changes to the Windsor Framework.
Its a lie. All 3 cannot be true. But they are saying it anyway. And demand that people believe them.
How many months since the Rishi was parading the now discarded Windsor Framework as a huge triumph of his will?
Much like getting your girlfriend pregnant on a pull out sofa there’s a deep sense of irony that the Conservative & Unionist Party, aided and abetted by the DUP, have via Brexit done more to weaken Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom than the IRA.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/07/how-do-you-solve-a-solution-like-the-northern-ireland-protocol/