Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
+1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
It's not Streisand. Their comms managers may not get their jobs by being the best in the business, but they're not that stupid.
The mistake is to assume that if she had a health issue they would necessarily be OK with its nature and cause and circumstances coming out. It's easy to think of scenarios where that wouldn't be so - ones that don't involve the anti-Christ or bad people believing what they read on the internet.
You believe the story about the photograph? I certainly have my doubts, and I am not one to go into conspiracy theories.
Of course it may just be health issues, but if she currently looks as good as she did in the photo, then why isn't she back at work? She looked amazing.
I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:
The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.
Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.
I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.
I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...
While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.
That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.
As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.
So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
I just don't see why there is this level of scepticism at a large Labour majority when all polls point to it. It would be another thing if the polling were tight or even volatile - but even the friendliest polls for the Tories suggest a Lab majority of 50+.
Yet you yourself are sceptical of Boris being the most popular Tory amongst Tory voters, despite almost every poll showing it to be so. It’s the old story of believing polls you agree with and not being so sure of those you don’t
The hard part will be a Labour Government winning when the underlying fundamentals do not favour them. The country has turned from Sunak but its social attitudes are right leaning like the rest of Europe (see their views on immigration), and there will be no trouser fulls of cash to spend (quite the opposite - Starmer will be making cuts).
To get a second term, Starmer will have to be very good, and the Tories useless.
Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned
"A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest. “He’s increasingly determined to prove his point and establish his own mandate,” they said. “You don’t get to achieve the things he’s done without some steel. He’s not just going to roll over. “People should be careful what they wish for. It’s up to them. If they don’t want an election they should stop messing about. Rishi could easily say ‘OK, if that’s the mood of the party I don’t think it’s fair to put it to another leadership contest’. He can say reasonably he might just go to the palace instead.”
More desperate threats. Really nobody believes this drivel from an apparent senior ally .
Actually, I'm minded to believe it. My guess is Sunak would rather be ousted by the electorate than the plotters, not least because he doesn't have much to lose (he is likely to lose in the autumn anyway) and he might gain some ground in the campaign and go down to an honourable defeat that saves the party from oblivion.
I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:
The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.
Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.
I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.
I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...
While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.
That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.
As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.
So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
I just don't see why there is this level of scepticism at a large Labour majority when all polls point to it. It would be another thing if the polling were tight or even volatile - but even the friendliest polls for the Tories suggest a Lab majority of 50+.
Yet you yourself are sceptical of Boris being the most popular Tory amongst Tory voters, despite almost every poll showing it to be so. It’s the old story of believing polls you agree with and not being so sure of those you don’t
The hard part will be a Labour Government winning when the underlying fundamentals do not favour them. The country has turned from Sunak but its social attitudes are right leaning like the rest of Europe (see their views on immigration), and there will be no trouser fulls of cash to spend (quite the opposite - Starmer will be making cuts).
To get a second term, Starmer will have to be very good, and the Tories useless.
AIUI the USP for Conservatism always used to be - you may not like our policies, but at least we are competent. But now they are not. They have been spendthrift (not necessarily their fault - two huge external blows have dealt a very hard hand) but if the people of Britain wanted a government to splash the cash, they always knew they could vote Labour. If they wanted bring, socially regressive, but sensible spending and lower taxes, it was vote Tory.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
+1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
It's not Streisand. Their comms managers may not get their jobs by being the best in the business, but they're not that stupid.
The mistake is to assume that if she had a health issue they would necessarily be OK with its nature and cause and circumstances coming out. It's easy to think of scenarios where that wouldn't be so - ones that don't involve the anti-Christ or bad people believing what they read on the internet.
You believe the story about the photograph? I certainly have my doubts, and I am not one to go into conspiracy theories.
Of course it may just be health issues, but if she currently looks as good as she did in the photo, then why isn't she back at work? She looked amazing.
I assume she had something significant, not fatal, and which counts as “abdominal surgery” like they said; and requires a longish recovery. For example, a hysterectomy. You can look alright in a photo but feel grim still and not want to do public events.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
"Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel" - Swiss, Shirley?
I know that the papers want to make the next GE interesting, but I do not understand the constant refusal to see the evidence before ones eyes from some commentators:
The Labour Party have been consistently polling 20% above the Tories since Truss was PM - and the Tories have consistently hovered around / below 25% for the last 6 months. The Reform vote share is growing and, despite Labour not actually being popular in polls, there doesn't seem to be any huge swing from Labour to Greens or LDs - with both remaining steady.
Given FPTP this scenario could produce anything from a Labour majority that was similar to the majority won by the Tories in 2019, or we could have Baathist levels of Labour representation in the Commons and an extinction level wipeout of the Tories. FPTP makes it difficult to predict - but neither of those scenarios are more tricky than '97.
I think people are just failing to see that the time of long stable governments has long been over. It looks like we have had that since the coalition because the Tories have been the biggest party after each election since 2010 - but they only won an outright majority twice and a governable majority once (I don't count the majority that Cameron won as governable as it required the Brexit referendum to function and fell apart almost immediately afterwards). Conservative policy (on the economy and Brexit) has been hegemonic, but the party less so. A huge swing from a large Tory majority to a large Labour majority would be in line with what I see as quite chaotic electoral modern history in the UK.
I also would not be surprised if by 2030 Labour looks like they may lose their majority, despite potentially Baathist numbers, for similar reasons - that since the 2008 crash no political party has dealt with the underlying economic issues that are negatively impacting most people and, in fact, keep allowing thigs to get worse as the situation in the economy changes over time. Labour don't look like they'll enact policies to actually help, so I imagine a similar fallout for them that could, eventually, benefit reactionaries like Farage who argue that neither side has the answers and only he can sort things out...
While I think it overwhelmingly likely Labour win, with the current favourite a landslide, it should not be forgotten that it is a much tougher hill to climb than 1997 - when Labour were on around 300 seats and there was far less cynicism about politicians.
That's important because it offers better explanations of Labour strategy (or what it should be) and how their commanding position is slightly more precarious than then. They have to win seats in which they came nowhere 5 years ago. The polls would indicate that's likely, but it doesn't stop it being a pretty difficult and then incredible feat if and when they do so.
As to the future, we'll see, little doubt in the volatility of the electorate. My gut feeling though is that since the Truss debacle the Tories have so discredited themselves that Labour may get more of a sympathetic hearing than some expect. There are cohorts that may never, ever vote Tory again having previously done so because of the past decade or so.
So if Lab manage some incremental improvements and relieve some of the acute crises where the country feels really broken, then they might be harder to dislodge than imagined and get credit for relatively meagre returns. Of course if in a 2nd term there's not real progress on resolving our big issues, then they would likely face rejection.
I just don't see why there is this level of scepticism at a large Labour majority when all polls point to it. It would be another thing if the polling were tight or even volatile - but even the friendliest polls for the Tories suggest a Lab majority of 50+.
Yet you yourself are sceptical of Boris being the most popular Tory amongst Tory voters, despite almost every poll showing it to be so. It’s the old story of believing polls you agree with and not being so sure of those you don’t
The hard part will be a Labour Government winning when the underlying fundamentals do not favour them. The country has turned from Sunak but its social attitudes are right leaning like the rest of Europe (see their views on immigration), and there will be no trouser fulls of cash to spend (quite the opposite - Starmer will be making cuts).
To get a second term, Starmer will have to be very good, and the Tories useless.
AIUI the USP for Conservatism always used to be - you may not like our policies, but at least we are competent. But now they are not. They have been spendthrift (not necessarily their fault - two huge external blows have dealt a very hard hand) but if the people of Britain wanted a government to splash the cash, they always knew they could vote Labour. If they wanted bring, socially regressive, but sensible spending and lower taxes, it was vote Tory.
Where are we now?
Oh I don’t think the Tories are in for domination either. I wonder about a decade of chaotic failure that brings about something new. I don’t think we’ve seen the last “Brexit moment” when the marginalised voter does something many are horrified by.
Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
+1. The Kate thing is weird. I don't understand the point of any of it. If she is seriously unwell, then just say, and expect privacy. Health issues happen. If its something else? Divorce? Seems unlikely. Is she dead? Even more unlikely. At this point its classic Streissand.
It's not Streisand. Their comms managers may not get their jobs by being the best in the business, but they're not that stupid.
The mistake is to assume that if she had a health issue they would necessarily be OK with its nature and cause and circumstances coming out. It's easy to think of scenarios where that wouldn't be so - ones that don't involve the anti-Christ or bad people believing what they read on the internet.
You believe the story about the photograph? I certainly have my doubts, and I am not one to go into conspiracy theories.
Of course it may just be health issues, but if she currently looks as good as she did in the photo, then why isn't she back at work? She looked amazing.
I assume she had something significant, not fatal, and which counts as “abdominal surgery” like they said; and requires a longish recovery. For example, a hysterectomy. You can look alright in a photo but feel grim still and not want to do public events.
None of it is any of our business.
It is our business to the extent that the Royal Family exists and we are still subjects etc. There is the money part too. I wish her well, but there is a distinct lack of honesty at the moment. Plus ca change etc.
The photo was a massive mistake, in my opinion. I do not believe it was taken recently.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Dissolution would have to be Tuesday 26th, so it depends on how much/little the government wants to get through in the washup and how long that would take.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Dissolution would have to be Tuesday 26th, so it depends on how much/little the government wants to get through in the washup and how long that would take.
I’ve lost track, when will the Rwanda Bill go through (if it does)? I don’t believe he will go in May, but if does, he would be crazy (in his terms, I hate the policy) not to get that through first and have a flight take off during the campaign.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned
"A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
Yes, this is probably not idle threat. It’s a great weapon he wields over the rebels. Try to oust me and I will simply call a General Election first.
For this reason alone betting on another tory leader this side of the GE could be throwing away money.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
And that's your experience, but its not mine. I meet lots of people too. I am in a different bubble a lot of the time - I work at a University. No love for the Tories round here (but that's always the case). People don't randomly talk about politics.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.
Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.
The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.
I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.
The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.
Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
I agree with this. I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.
Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs. Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader. Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.
The Reformed Conservative Party will: Stand up for British culture, identity and values. Restore trust in our democracy. Repair our broken public services. Cut taxes to make work pay. Slash government waste and red tape. Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth. Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.
The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.
Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.
Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
Especially tidal - for base load.
The resistance to tidal in the permanent system of government is a fascinating example of how "the done thing" is pushed.
I bet they are still pushing those ridiculous reports on tidal - the one claiming that it would need x hundred percent of the concrete production of Europe was especially funny.
+1 on tidal and base load (with nuclear)
I was working in the renewable sector in the early 90s in the aftermath of electricity privatisation. Thatcher wanted nuclear protected (or rather, she realised no-one in their right mind would buy nuclear looking at the waste costs, legacies and post-Chernobyl ickiness). She wanted a way to insert an obligation to have nuclear into the privatised landscape.
One very enterprising (and enlightened) civil servant realised that there was an opportunity for renewables and came up with the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) which Thatcher liked, and his masterstroke was to lump renewables in with nuclear (from memory it was 2-3%) to receive the the NFFO money. That 3% drove a huge boom in investment and the start of the wind energy industry we see today in this country.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Dissolution would have to be Tuesday 26th, so it depends on how much/little the government wants to get through in the washup and how long that would take.
I’ve lost track, when will the Rwanda Bill go through (if it does)? I don’t believe he will go in May, but if does, he would be crazy (in his terms, I hate the policy) not to get that through first and have a flight take off during the campaign.
Up to the Lords.
Commons are presumably about to undo all their amendments today, and it goes back to the ermine brigade on Wednesday.
The really cynical thing would be for Sunak to go officially bezerk, "Peers vs. People" on Thursday morning and call an election on the back of that. Otherwise, what's the electorally optimal time for the first flight? If it goes wrong, or there's enough time to see that no, sending a proportion of unfortunates to Africa doesn't Stop The Boats, that's not good. But if it doesn't happen, that's not good either.
To be honest, it would serve Sunak right if getting Rwanda through is what ultimately kippers him.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Dissolution would have to be Tuesday 26th, so it depends on how much/little the government wants to get through in the washup and how long that would take.
I’ve lost track, when will the Rwanda Bill go through (if it does)? I don’t believe he will go in May, but if does, he would be crazy (in his terms, I hate the policy) not to get that through first and have a flight take off during the campaign.
Up to the Lords.
Commons are presumably about to undo all their amendments today, and it goes back to the ermine brigade on Wednesday.
The really cynical thing would be for Sunak to go officially bezerk, "Peers vs. People" on Thursday morning and call an election on the back of that. Otherwise, what's the electorally optimal time for the first flight? If it goes wrong, or there's enough time to see that no, sending a proportion of unfortunates to Africa doesn't Stop The Boats, that's not good. But if it doesn't happen, that's not good either.
To be honest, it would serve Sunak right if getting Rwanda through is what ultimately kippers him.
Lost track of the polling on this. Are his voters still fans? If so, I guess his optimal strategy might actually be for a the first flight to be AFTER the election by a few days. It can’t go wrong, but he can run a “x hours left to save my bonkers policy” line.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
No, rejoin ended in 2019, not even the LDs back it now. Starmer will align more closely with EU regulation however which will if anything bring GB closer to NI again
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
Actually the elderly who live alone have largely been widowed or are widowers. Plus of course their children will inherit those houses when they die
The best time for the Kigali Express to take off is on or around the day the election is called and the campaign starts. That way the tory campaign can say Labour will scrap the plan leading to every single person in Britain being stabbed and/or raped by an asylo but there won't be enough time before the election for people to realise it doesn't work.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
If Badenoch thinks she might lead the party into the election, she's nuts. Is it possible her remarks were taken out of context? Surely she's not thick enough to have spoken without thinking first. Because of course Hester was talking about Abbott.
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
Dissolution would have to be Tuesday 26th, so it depends on how much/little the government wants to get through in the washup and how long that would take.
I’ve lost track, when will the Rwanda Bill go through (if it does)? I don’t believe he will go in May, but if does, he would be crazy (in his terms, I hate the policy) not to get that through first and have a flight take off during the campaign.
Up to the Lords.
Commons are presumably about to undo all their amendments today, and it goes back to the ermine brigade on Wednesday.
The really cynical thing would be for Sunak to go officially bezerk, "Peers vs. People" on Thursday morning and call an election on the back of that. Otherwise, what's the electorally optimal time for the first flight? If it goes wrong, or there's enough time to see that no, sending a proportion of unfortunates to Africa doesn't Stop The Boats, that's not good. But if it doesn't happen, that's not good either.
To be honest, it would serve Sunak right if getting Rwanda through is what ultimately kippers him.
Lost track of the polling on this. Are his voters still fans? If so, I guess his optimal strategy might actually be for a the first flight to be AFTER the election by a few days. It can’t go wrong, but he can run a “x hours left to save my bonkers policy” line.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
Actually the elderly who live alone have largely been widowed or are widowers. Plus of course their children will inherit those houses when they die
I think there has also been a big rise in couples splitting after raising their children. If you are hale and hearty in your late 40's and 50's and have grown thoroughly sick of the sight of you balding, flatulent, overweight husband, its quite attractive to live on your own again, No more battles over the loo seat, you can watch all the TV shows YOU want to watch, no more bloody football etc.
And besides, those widows and widowers can just as easily bunk up too!
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoted to armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
Actually the elderly who live alone have largely been widowed or are widowers. Plus of course their children will inherit those houses when they die
I think the much older ones probably are mostly widowed, but the younger ones (70s) are a mix of both. I have 2 friends (yep just 2) who have paired up with someone else. In both cases one is divorced the other widowed. However they never sell the spare house as it is a refugee if things don't work out.
Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned
"A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
Yes, this is probably not idle threat. It’s a great weapon he wields over the rebels. Try to oust me and I will simply call a General Election first.
For this reason alone betting on another tory leader this side of the GE could be throwing away money.
A party confidence vote is decided by MPs. If there's a contested leadership vote, MPs select two candidates. But as soon as parliament is dissolved, there are no MPs. What does the rulebook say, or is it all up to the Old Lady and the '22 exec?
ETA: if it goes beyond a certain level of pear-shaped, Cameron as next PM becomes a possibility.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoting armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly take what you say as true, but I do think there is a sea change amongst young people. Set against the backdrop of climate catastrophe, a new Cold War, genocide, etc. some of these seemingly intractable, generational objections are melting away.
I think a bigger blocker might be some of the practical issues like 'what happens to NHS access in the North'?
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
I would say the opposite. In 1997 the Tories were expected to lose but the scale of the loss was unexpected. Hence the "Were you up for Portillo?" moment. Now no-one has a good word for the Tories and a sizable part of the electorate would be happy for the party to disappear entirely. The expectation is a Starmer landslide.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoting armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly take what you say as true, but I do think there is a sea change amongst young people. Set against the backdrop of climate catastrophe, a new Cold War, genocide, etc. some of these seemingly intractable, generational objections are melting away.
I think a bigger blocker might be some of the practical issues like 'what happens to NHS access in the North'?
The polling doesn't show a sea change. There seems to be a form of hope casting that politics have changed in Northern Ireland. They haven't, much. The Alliance has picked up some votes as the voters on each side have chosen the most extreme legit party on their side (DUP and SF). Otherwise business as usual.
There seems to be a largish chunk of the Catholic community that wants things to stay the same.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Wasn't there a story that one of the Blair children was conceived at Balmoral because QEII scrimped on the heating?
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoting armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly take what you say as true, but I do think there is a sea change amongst young people. Set against the backdrop of climate catastrophe, a new Cold War, genocide, etc. some of these seemingly intractable, generational objections are melting away.
I think a bigger blocker might be some of the practical issues like 'what happens to NHS access in the North'?
The NHS would be the main reason for most of what would be the (minority) pro-Union vote among Catholics in the 6C.
For Ireland to be reunified, there'd have to be a referendum in the 26C too, in which a pro-reunification victory wouldn't be a dead cert.
But it's not as if all Protestants (or whose parents were or are in that category) would vote for the Union.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoted to armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
So you've just got to 'seriously' ask for a border poll and hey presto?
I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.
It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.
Doing a deal with the Tories taints Reform UK! Reform are popular because the Tories are unpopular. I suspect keeping their distance may be more beneficial to the party.
The Reform UK line is that the Tories are as bad as Labour. Ergo, why should they care about them costing the Tories seats? If a RefUK voter’s focus is on reducing immigration, then one can see their point. The Tories have delivered record immigration: why lend them any aid?
More cynically, Labour are going to win the next election. Which is better for Tice and Farage? A higher Reform vote share and the Tories lose another 20 seats, or the opposite? Saving the Tories a few seats is of no interest to them.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Wasn't there a story that one of the Blair children was conceived at Balmoral because QEII scrimped on the heating?
I was about to go off on an ungracious crack about balaclavas but shall refrain.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoting armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly take what you say as true, but I do think there is a sea change amongst young people. Set against the backdrop of climate catastrophe, a new Cold War, genocide, etc. some of these seemingly intractable, generational objections are melting away.
I think a bigger blocker might be some of the practical issues like 'what happens to NHS access in the North'?
The NHS would be the main reason for most of what would be the (minority) pro-Union vote among Catholics in the 6C.
For Ireland to be reunified, there'd have to be a referendum in the 26C too, in which a pro-reunification victory wouldn't be a dead cert.
But it's not as if all Protestants (or whose parents were or are in that category) would vote for the Union.
The polling shows, consistently, that Protestants would vote No, quite solidly. A chunk of the Catholic community will also vote No.
A referendum in the South for unification would be won by Yes. Mainly on the basis of Irish people feeling an obligation to do so.
Some will see this as pitch to the Tory Right. But it may just be Badenoch being Badenoch: she hates what she sees as other people pushing a narrative on her + often hits out at 'cancel culture' - which can blind her to the facts of a case (Hester *was* talking about Abbott)
Badenoch mentioned Conservative main funder again, along with his racist remarks. She thinks she got away with it.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoted to armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
So you've just got to 'seriously' ask for a border poll and hey presto?
SF will say things about asking for a border poll, but won't actually push it.
They will not do so, until and if, they get polling that shows there would be a Yes vote with some kind of margin.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Wasn't there a story that one of the Blair children was conceived at Balmoral because QEII scrimped on the heating?
Was Madonna (Justify My Love) or Nine Inch Nails playing? Asking for a fellow PBer who I shall not name.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
Agree with most of that but real wage growth is more likely to be 2%+ this year than 0.1%. Of course, this is subject to the additional tax burden and also reflects the fact that real wages have fallen a lot during the inflation blip so it depends on how you count it.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
Agree with most of that but real wage growth is more likely to be 2%+ this year than 0.1%. Of course, this is subject to the additional tax burden and also reflects the fact that real wages have fallen a lot during the inflation blip so it depends on how you count it.
In what sectors do your expect to see real above inflation pay increases?
Because I don’t see much evidence and even 2% won’t help a 40% increase in mortgage costs
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank right are also still beneficial to capitalism, no matter what they campaign on, so the structures of capital will allow them to succeed in a way that those structures refuse to give the left even a slight chance.
Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.
Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.
The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.
I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.
The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.
Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
I agree with this. I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.
Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs. Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader. Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.
The Reformed Conservative Party will: Stand up for British culture, identity and values. Restore trust in our democracy. Repair our broken public services. Cut taxes to make work pay. Slash government waste and red tape. Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth. Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.
The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.
Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.
Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
The flaw in the logic is the idea that wind and waves are free. Oil and gas are free too, if you drill holes in the ground in the right place. The snag is that you to get your "free" energy from the wind you have to build lots of expensive infrastructure, and when you get your free energy it's intermittent, so you either have to have lots of expensive storage infrastructure, or build all the oil and gas infrastructure as well and burn oil and gas when the wind isn't blowing.
It may be that renewables are the right answer to our future energy needs - the jury is still out on that. But the idea that it's cheap energy is a complete mirage, as should be obvious to anybody whose been looking at their electricity bills over the last 30 years.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
Actually the elderly who live alone have largely been widowed or are widowers. Plus of course their children will inherit those houses when they die
I think the much older ones probably are mostly widowed, but the younger ones (70s) are a mix of both. I have 2 friends (yep just 2) who have paired up with someone else. In both cases one is divorced the other widowed. However they never sell the spare house as it is a refugee if things don't work out.
I’m similar; there’s a ‘young’ (50’s) widower in my family who has found himself a new partner. However, they haven’t set up home together….. yet anyway. Both have quite large houses, both have children who have flown the nest, and they’re ’deciding what to do’! There’s another, slightly older, widow who has now found a new partner and they likewise are not, most of the time, living together. Her children have, again, homes of their own; don’t know whether he had any.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
Agree with most of that but real wage growth is more likely to be 2%+ this year than 0.1%. Of course, this is subject to the additional tax burden and also reflects the fact that real wages have fallen a lot during the inflation blip so it depends on how you count it.
In what sectors do your expect to see real above inflation pay increases?
Because I don’t see much evidence and even 2% won’t help a 40% increase in mortgage costs
I expect the rate to moderate somewhat but I expect inflation to fall more too resulting in net 2%+ real wage growth. Wage growth would have to collapse to get anywhere near 0.1%.
Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
The rumours are to do with the bizarre internet partisanship. Which works thus
1) I am a decent, unbiased person. 2) Royal wife x is a saint. 3) I am a decent, unbiased person. 4) Royal wife y is the anti-christ and so is her husband. And their children. And their cat. HATE HATE HATE HATE.
Plus you have republicans who are extremely upset - they were promised the monarchy would implode in seconds of King Charles getting the throne.
We are hearing less and less about Prince William and his glorious future reign these days mind.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
The rumours are to do with the bizarre internet partisanship. Which works thus
1) I am a decent, unbiased person. 2) Royal wife x is a saint. 3) I am a decent, unbiased person. 4) Royal wife y is the anti-christ and so is her husband. And their children. And their cat. HATE HATE HATE HATE.
Plus you have republicans who are extremely upset - they were promised the monarchy would implode in seconds of King Charles getting the throne.
We are hearing less and less about Prince William and his glorious future reign these days mind.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank right are also still beneficial to capitalism, no matter what they campaign on, so the structures of capital will allow them to succeed in a way that those structures refuse to give the left even a slight chance.
Why does a large amount of Twitter / X believe that Chaz has kicked the bucket? Is this wishful thinking on the poetry of him dying on St Paddy's day; or is this an outcome of the continued palace silence after the weirdness around Kate and Chaz's illness leading to more conspiratorial thinking?
You must be new to twitter.
TBF twitter was ahead of the "official" curve when Lizzy popped her clogs. I know it has got much worse since then, and recent Windsor conspiracies have been abound - but still, we know Charles is ill and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's popped it.
The King will be at Trooping the Colour but in a carriage while his cancer treatment continues rather than riding a horse, he certainly is not dead
What is the poetry of him dying on St. Patrick's Day?
Fairly sure Charles isn't dead. The lags between queen's death and internet rumours of queen's death, and between queen's death and actual announcement of queen's death, were about 2 hours and 7 hours respectively. It was hardly hushed up.
The Kate stuff is weirder by far. Not least because it's hard to see who gains by it.
The rumours are to do with the bizarre internet partisanship. Which works thus
1) I am a decent, unbiased person. 2) Royal wife x is a saint. 3) I am a decent, unbiased person. 4) Royal wife y is the anti-christ and so is her husband. And their children. And their cat. HATE HATE HATE HATE.
Plus you have republicans who are extremely upset - they were promised the monarchy would implode in seconds of King Charles getting the throne.
We are hearing less and less about Prince William and his glorious future reign these days mind.
The relationship between the (male) heir to the throne and his father seems to becoming the traditional one. George V disapproved of Edward and in Georgian times relations between King and PoW were famously frosty.
Looking at the You Gov polling on Rwanda it would seem that the HOL could block the Bill with Labour support without suffering too much blowback .
What’s the bigger risk for Labour blocking it or letting it pass and against perceived wisdom it’s successful .
I know it is old fashioned but I would like to see Labour (and Tory rebels) fight this one on the basis of what is right and moral rather than what is the most likely political benefit.
The Rwanda bill should be defeated because it is immoral, not just because of gaining some political advantage.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
So you're in a bubble by your own description.
The overwhelming majority of normal people in this country travel by car.
Your real people are presumably fictional, but if not then others in your bubble.
The number one topic normal people are talking about today, annoyingly, is that United beat Liverpool at the weekend. Dammit.
Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned
"A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
Yes, this is probably not idle threat. It’s a great weapon he wields over the rebels. Try to oust me and I will simply call a General Election first.
For this reason alone betting on another tory leader this side of the GE could be throwing away money.
Yes, I'm with you on this, see my post above. My guess is he'd rather go down to an honourable election defeat than be defenestrated by the frothers.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank left seem to go Green, these days.
True, the water melon vote.
The Greens are being used as Spare Labour, at the moment.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank right are also still beneficial to capitalism, no matter what they campaign on, so the structures of capital will allow them to succeed in a way that those structures refuse to give the left even a slight chance.
Yes indeed. Many with capital.voted for Hitler to prevent the communists getting in.
While the country is split approximately down the middle politically, there are still a couple of things they agree on.
70% of respondents reject outright Trump's "presidential immunity" argument - and a similar proportion failed to express confidence in the Supreme Court's ability to make the right decision.
A clear, but smaller majority (c.60%) are against the current delay, and say that Trump should still face his trial(s) before the election.
Looking at the Canadian Opinion polling there may be a wipe out of the Liberal Party at the next General.
Not really, given when Trudeau took the leadership of the Liberals they had been in 3rd place at the 2011 election on just 18% to 30% for the NDP and 39% for the Conservatives even most current Canadian polls still have the Liberals a clear second still ahead of the NDP even if it looks like the Conservatives will return to power next year for the first time since 2015
Canadian elections always seem quite wild as it feels like there is a much greater share of floating voters than in other countries leading to massive swings. Certainly the Canadian Conservatives seem to be heading for a healthy majority according to the polls. The Liberals have to be wary of a crossover with the NDP. This last happened in 2011 and led to the Liberals only getting 34/308 seats vs. 103 for the NDP.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
I think you’re half right but I don’t think it feels like ‘97 because the real hatred isn’t there. In ‘97 the Tories were seen as the baddies, but now they are just viewed as rubbish.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
Starmer will have the twin economic tailwinds of Rejoin and Irish unification.
LOL.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
There is no chance of Irish unification in the near future.
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoted to armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
I think two things are true. There is little prospect in the near term of a successful Border Poll leading to formal unification. People in Northern Ireland are increasingly looking south rather than east so the North de facto is becoming part of all Ireland.
Presumably this disconnection will resolve itself at some point but I'm not clear how and when.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
yes, oligarchs up 11,000 fold and the serfs aspire to Burundi
While the country is split approximately down the middle politically, there are still a couple of things they agree on.
70% of respondents reject outright Trump's "presidential immunity" argument - and a similar proportion failed to express confidence in the Supreme Court's ability to make the right decision.
A clear, but smaller majority (c.60%) are against the current delay, and say that Trump should still face his trial(s) before the election.
Ironically if the SC accepted the immunity argument it could do Trump more damage . The Dem argument would be just imagine what Trump could do as President without those checks .
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
I'm hoping (I think not unreasonably) for material improvement (esp on public services and reducing inequality) but not transformation or any of this Making Britain Great Again nonsense.
Transformation is beyond the powers of politicians (global macro factors dominate) and I find the latter type rhetoric to be invariably a mask for brittle xenophobic (or at best nostalgia-based) nationalism.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
10% per annum per capita growth for a quarter of a century. Impressive.
While the country is split approximately down the middle politically, there are still a couple of things they agree on.
70% of respondents reject outright Trump's "presidential immunity" argument - and a similar proportion failed to express confidence in the Supreme Court's ability to make the right decision.
A clear, but smaller majority (c.60%) are against the current delay, and say that Trump should still face his trial(s) before the election.
Ironically if the SC accepted the immunity argument it could do Trump more damage . The Dem argument would be just imagine what Trump could do as President without those checks .
Alternatively, imagine what a 7/2 Supreme Court might do.
I'd be amazed if RefUK don't cut some sort of tacit deal with the Tories and drop out of Tory marginal seats.
It's wrong to assume that that will benefit the Tories much though - RefUK support would split, abstain, Tories, Labour, others, in that order, in my unscientific estimate, giving the Tories only a little help.
Doing a deal with the Tories taints Reform UK! Reform are popular because the Tories are unpopular. I suspect keeping their distance may be more beneficial to the party.
The Reform UK line is that the Tories are as bad as Labour. Ergo, why should they care about them costing the Tories seats? If a RefUK voter’s focus is on reducing immigration, then one can see their point. The Tories have delivered record immigration: why lend them any aid?
More cynically, Labour are going to win the next election. Which is better for Tice and Farage? A higher Reform vote share and the Tories lose another 20 seats, or the opposite? Saving the Tories a few seats is of no interest to them.
I guess Farage and Tice's long term strategic aim is to be the leaders of the UK's main right wing party. There are two ways in which this might happen. One is that Reform's vote gradually increases as the Tories' declines, rather as Labour took over from the Liberals as the main opposition party in the interwar years. If this is the strategy then it will take several parliaments to achieve and their main aim for the next election would be for the Tories to do so badly that it would be realistically possible to argue they are finished as a governing party. Reform would then step forward and seek to fill the gap.
So far so good. But Reform's problem is that even with Farage's campaigning skills and the kind of media focus he could bring they are unlikely to win any seats in a general election. It's quite possible to imagine their vote share rising to around 15% or even higher but it is spread pretty evenly across the country and there is no evidence that Reform has the kind of grassroots operation that would be required to deliver victories at constituency level. In fact the evidence is the opposite - on the day of the Wellingborough by-election Reform were out campaigning in Irthlingborough, a very pretty village but not actually in the Wellingborough constituency. They have hardly any local councillors and no constituency-level structures comparable to those of the other parties.
And if Reform cannot win seats at Westminster any attempt to supplant the Tories would seem fanciful.
So the other option available to Farage and Tice is to wait until after the election and then take over the remains of the Tory Party and make it into a vehicle for Reform's policies (inasmuch as it isn't already!). In this case their interest is still in a heavy Tory defeat, but not necessarily a complete wipe-out - they want to take over something approaching a functioning party, not a smoking ruin. This is a more realistic strategy I think, and I think Farage understands that. Accordingly I would not expect him to come back as leader of Reform but he will campaign for them at the election and they will stand in every constituency though he will not be a candidate. After the election I think he expects that the Tory membership (which must now consist solely of a few thousand old age pensioners) will turn to him as their saviour and he will be able to bend it to his will.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
per annum per capita growth for a quarter of a century. Impressive.
Do you get double the pay for using two logins at once?
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
per annum per capita growth for a quarter of a century. Impressive.
Do you get double the pay for using two logins at once?
I was joking! It's obvious that standards of living in Russia haven't increased by 10% each year for 25 years.
Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.
Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.
The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.
I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.
The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.
Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
I agree with this. I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.
Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs. Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader. Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.
The Reformed Conservative Party will: Stand up for British culture, identity and values. Restore trust in our democracy. Repair our broken public services. Cut taxes to make work pay. Slash government waste and red tape. Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth. Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.
The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.
Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.
Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
The flaw in the logic is the idea that wind and waves are free. Oil and gas are free too, if you drill holes in the ground in the right place. The snag is that you to get your "free" energy from the wind you have to build lots of expensive infrastructure, and when you get your free energy it's intermittent, so you either have to have lots of expensive storage infrastructure, or build all the oil and gas infrastructure as well and burn oil and gas when the wind isn't blowing.
It may be that renewables are the right answer to our future energy needs - the jury is still out on that. But the idea that it's cheap energy is a complete mirage, as should be obvious to anybody whose been looking at their electricity bills over the last 30 years.
But you need infrastructure anyway. You pay for that, and it gets amortised, whatever energy source is putting the electrons in at one end. Distributed, localised electricity generation and distribution is more efficient (similar to how packets are distributed over the Internet).
And it's demonstrable cheaper energy. from 2015-2020m fossil fuels received £80bn in subsidies, renewables received £60bn. I agree that renewables aren't free, but they are a damn sight cheaper than fossil fuels which are eye-wateringly expensive. And that's before you factor in what we'll have to pay to remedy the carbon emissions.
Rishi Sunak tells critics: This is our bounce back year Prime minister ‘would sooner call vote than be ousted’, a senior ally warned
"A senior ally of the prime minister said that Sunak’s critics underestimate his resolve. They said that he would be prepared to call a general election if rebels force a leadership contest.
Yes, this is probably not idle threat. It’s a great weapon he wields over the rebels. Try to oust me and I will simply call a General Election first.
For this reason alone betting on another tory leader this side of the GE could be throwing away money.
I've decided it's all nonsense and Sunak is safe as houses to lead into the GE. So I've topped up my StarmerNextPM bond at 1.3.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
Old news. That growth took place almost entirely between 1999 and 2008. Since then hardly any growth at all.
And by the way it isn't 11 times. It's two and a half times according to the World Bank.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
per annum per capita growth for a quarter of a century. Impressive.
Do you get double the pay for using two logins at once?
I was joking! It's obvious that standards of living in Russia haven't increased by 10% each year for 25 years.
Maybe I was joking too.
Perhaps Putin's income has? I wonder how much protection money he rakes in personally.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank left seem to go Green, these days.
True, the water melon vote.
The Greens are being used as Spare Labour, at the moment.
Thinking about our local Green County Councillor, I don’t see it. Spare LD, maybe.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
That's what I think. Not close. If Trump makes the ballot and only just loses I'll land my Big Short (yay) but I won't pretend to have 100% called it right. My call is he neither gets reelected nor gets within spitting distance of it.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
He is too old. So is Trump.
The USA should not be having this choice.
I wouldn't disagree. But having got that choice the answer is a complete no brainer.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
He is too old. So is Trump.
The USA should not be having this choice.
I wouldn't disagree. But having got that choice the answer is a complete no brainer.
Their whole schtick is that the Conservatives have lost their way and failed their supporters.
Tearing down the parliamentary Tory party is exactly what they want.
The question, to my mind, is how organised their ground game will be. UKIP proved to be rubbish at the nuts and bolts of getting their potential votes into the ballot box.
I agree. The objective of the UKIP / Brexit Party / ReFUK progression has been to take over the Conservative Party. Canadageddon is the target - where the smaller party further to the right takes over what is left of the supposedly more mainstream party after ELE.
The reason why Farage will come back is simple - he has to be a player to become THE player. Remember that Conservative Party rules require its leader to be an MP. So pick your spot, run for office, finally get elected, rule over the ashes.
Tice has gone for Hartlepools, Farage should run in...? Thanet again? Clacton? Boston? Where is the population heavily Brexity, poor and GBeebies-level ignorant?
I agree with this. I think Farage's strategic aim is to be leader of a combined Tory/Reform party.
Step 1. Reduce the Tory party to 100 seats with Farage on the sidelines avoiding responsibility for it. "Aw what a pity. Let's still be friends" - to the Tory membership and MPs. Step 2. Lead the move to combine the two parties with Farage as leader. Step 3. A "volunteer" among the remaining 100 Tory MPs steps down to allow Farage to win the by election and become LOTO.
The Reformed Conservative Party will: Stand up for British culture, identity and values. Restore trust in our democracy. Repair our broken public services. Cut taxes to make work pay. Slash government waste and red tape. Maximise Britain's vast energy treasure of oil and gas, to reduce the cost of energy, beat the cost of living crisis and help unleash real economic growth. Finally take back control over our borders, our money and our laws.
The Reformed Conservative Party will secure Britain's future as a free, proud and independent sovereign nation.
Genuine question (assuming you weren't just taking the p*ss with that list): GB has arguably the best wind and wave energy resources of any European nation. Why not use those - they're free? Plus that's lots of green tech expertise for global exports.
Wind = 29% and even solar energy is up to nearly 5%. Oil and gas increasingly expensive (ignoring carbon) and just sets us up for future dependency and supply problems as our resources dwindle?
The flaw in the logic is the idea that wind and waves are free. Oil and gas are free too, if you drill holes in the ground in the right place. The snag is that you to get your "free" energy from the wind you have to build lots of expensive infrastructure, and when you get your free energy it's intermittent, so you either have to have lots of expensive storage infrastructure, or build all the oil and gas infrastructure as well and burn oil and gas when the wind isn't blowing.
It may be that renewables are the right answer to our future energy needs - the jury is still out on that. But the idea that it's cheap energy is a complete mirage, as should be obvious to anybody whose been looking at their electricity bills over the last 30 years.
But you need infrastructure anyway. You pay for that, and it gets amortised, whatever energy source is putting the electrons in at one end. Distributed, localised electricity generation and distribution is more efficient (similar to how packets are distributed over the Internet).
And it's demonstrable cheaper energy. from 2015-2020m fossil fuels received £80bn in subsidies, renewables received £60bn. I agree that renewables aren't free, but they are a damn sight cheaper than fossil fuels which are eye-wateringly expensive. And that's before you factor in what we'll have to pay to remedy the carbon emissions.
You do also need to factor in the fact that you are still going to have to drill for those hydrocarbons even when you are not burning them. Like it or not your whole world economy is based on hydrocarbons in one form or another. From the lubricants and coolants to help your EV go, to the insulation around the wiring that underpins every aspect of modern society.
I am a big fan of not burning hydrocarbons and have been for 35 years - because it is a finite and valuable resource. But the idea the world can operate without hydrocarbons in all their other forms and uses is naive and dangerous.
Reform are going nowhere. They have the potential to cost a lot of Tories their seats but not by being elected themselves. Instead they will let Labour in with a comfortable majority and probably for the next 10 years. How does that advance their agenda? Pointless.
The crank left have agitated against capitalism for decades. There is zero chance of them actually gaining power *and implementing* their agenda, but they do so regardless.
Why is the crank right any different?
The main difference is that the right wing cranks seem to be able to attract almost 10% of the vote, mainly at the cost of the Conservatives, whilst the left wing cranks don't really trouble the scorers. But I agree that as cranks they have a lot in common.
The crank left seem to go Green, these days.
True, the water melon vote.
The Greens are being used as Spare Labour, at the moment.
Thinking about our local Green County Councillor, I don’t see it. Spare LD, maybe.
The Greens are picking up votes from people who are Left and disaffected from Labour. There is also a chunk of Liberal Green types as well.
Much as with the LD vote under Clegg, the contradictions in the voting base of the party would only become apparent when they tried to govern.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Wasn't there a story that one of the Blair children was conceived at Balmoral because QEII scrimped on the heating?
They could keep warm by just spooning. Tony and Cherie.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
Old news. That growth took place almost entirely between 1999 and 2008. Since then hardly any growth at all.
And by the way it isn't 11 times. It's two and a half times according to the World Bank.
Please stop quoting facts. Especially Western, NATO, gay facts.
The article appears confused and conflates two different issues: winning a landslide and ability to make an impact afterwards.
Those two dimensions are linked only if you believe that the latter is why people will vote at the GE.
However, this is a fallacy. Most people voting this time will be passing judgement, not looking into a crystal ball.
My contention is that voting against is a far more powerful motivation than voting for. This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened.
The article, and the state of things, is neatly summed up by its own comment:
"winning a landslide on a wave of popular goodwill looks like a tall order. The data shows that on almost every economic metric the country is doing worse now than it was in 1997.”
But that’s the point. The landslide won’t happen because of popular goodwill and optimism. It will happen because of ill-will and fury.
"This time people have raw hatred of the tories. Fury. Horror of what has happened. "
If the only you people you talk to all day are obsessed with politics then maybe this is the word that you see. its here on PB for sure. But in the real world? People are talking about the footy, the rugby, the weather, Kate Middleton sorry, the Princess of Wales etc etc.
I have little doubt of a thumping Labour win and its time that the Tories went home again to think again. It may take them a while, as they don't seem to be seeing the right answers right now.
But its good to step out of the bubble every now and again.
No one less in a political bubble, who still frequents this site, could you find. In fact, I write ‘frequents’ but I am frequently absent from here for weeks, months.
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
So you're in a bubble by your own description.
The overwhelming majority of normal people in this country travel by car.
Your real people are presumably fictional, but if not then others in your bubble.
The number one topic normal people are talking about today, annoyingly, is that United beat Liverpool at the weekend. Dammit.
And what a match it was. Still not sure how Liverpool managed to lose to be honest.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Biden at the Gridiron.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama. ...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
Note Starmer will have a far more difficult economic situation to deal with if he becomes PM than Blair did in 1997.
'An analysis of economic and polling data by the political consultancy Public First shows the country has lower wage growth, higher levels of debt and less affordable housing than it did when Labour last ousted the Conservatives from power..The economy grew 4.9% in 1997, following nearly five years where it did not shrink in a single quarter. This year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will grow just 0.6%.
Wage growth had been strong for years before the 1997 election and was 2.6% in the election year. This year, the OBR thinks it will be just 0.1%.
However SKS won't be burdened with the hopes and dreams of a nation as Blair was. It will be easier for him to overdeliver against expectations.
A very political stance. Low expectations are not the same as improving the national outlook.
Lets put this in perspective
We have low growth We have massive debts We need about 5 millions dwellings and the commensurate infrastructure We have a migration problem and the much larger problem of workforce participation We need productivity and investment We have a war in Ukraine
And Starmer is just the man for the job because he sacked Corbyn, The equivalent of reorganising the filing in Labour HQ,
Your hope is based on all of us accepting decline is good enough.
Personally I dont.
On housing, one factor has been the growth of older people splitting up and living on their own. What the nations needs is an oldies dating programme. Get all those selfish old folk out of their three bed houses and coupled up once again. More sex for the elderly, more houses for the young...
On the other hand there's Joe and Jill Biden at it like a couple in a french brothel and they still wont let go of that big white house in the middle of Washington. I dread to think what the Blairs do in their 9 houses.
Wasn't there a story that one of the Blair children was conceived at Balmoral because QEII scrimped on the heating?
They could keep warm by just spooning. Tony and Cherie.
On the topic of Putins "popularity" russian gdp per head is up 11 fold between 1999 and 2024. Thats a massive increase in standard of living at a time when the uk has stagnated.
10% per annum per capita growth for a quarter of a century. Impressive.
Comments
Of course it may just be health issues, but if she currently looks as good as she did in the photo, then why isn't she back at work? She looked amazing.
To get a second term, Starmer will have to be very good, and the Tories useless.
Where are we now?
Also - what is the absolute last day on which an election can be declared for 2 May? A friend tells me it's next Tuesday. Is that correct?? (This is assuming they say screw the wash-up, housekeeping, whatever.)
None of it is any of our business.
The photo was a massive mistake, in my opinion. I do not believe it was taken recently.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9921
I chat to real people. I don’t own a car but travel instead on trains and buses, very occasionally planes. I shop at Lidl and take my son to football matches. I talk to people who generally have no interest in politics. My Surrey tory-voting friend spends very little time on politics but she is in rage at the moment.
That is what I encounter everywhere with ordinary people. Raw fury at the tories. They fucked up their mortgages, their heating bills, their roads, their councils, their overseas and domestic travel, their shopping bills, and their NHS.
For this reason alone betting on another tory leader this side of the GE could be throwing away money.
The real danger is that there is no immediate prospect of anything feeling much better very soon. Blair could turn the spending taps on in 2001. Starmer doesn’t have the option as the bath is full. The danger is an actual populist exploiting this next time round - someone who is actually all the things Boris got accused of being.
I was working in the renewable sector in the early 90s in the aftermath of electricity privatisation. Thatcher wanted nuclear protected (or rather, she realised no-one in their right mind would buy nuclear looking at the waste costs, legacies and post-Chernobyl ickiness). She wanted a way to insert an obligation to have nuclear into the privatised landscape.
One very enterprising (and enlightened) civil servant realised that there was an opportunity for renewables and came up with the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) which Thatcher liked, and his masterstroke was to lump renewables in with nuclear (from memory it was 2-3%) to receive the the NFFO money. That 3% drove a huge boom in investment and the start of the wind energy industry we see today in this country.
Plus global nuclear disarmament, world peace, and all the good will our reprisals for slavery bring? You’re right. A new golden age.
Commons are presumably about to undo all their amendments today, and it goes back to the ermine brigade on Wednesday.
The really cynical thing would be for Sunak to go officially bezerk, "Peers vs. People" on Thursday morning and call an election on the back of that. Otherwise, what's the electorally optimal time for the first flight? If it goes wrong, or there's enough time to see that no, sending a proportion of unfortunates to Africa doesn't Stop The Boats, that's not good. But if it doesn't happen, that's not good either.
To be honest, it would serve Sunak right if getting Rwanda through is what ultimately kippers him.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/survey-results/daily/2024/03/05/0414c/2
And besides, those widows and widowers can just as easily bunk up too!
This is because there is a substantial block of the Catholic community who would vote against. This has been seen, clearly, in polls for decades.
Even among those who vote for explicitly Republican parties - when SF was devoted to armed violence to unite Ireland, a substantial block of their voters said that they would vote No in a referendum.
Until this changes, SF won't seriously ask for a Border Poll.
If there's a contested leadership vote, MPs select two candidates.
But as soon as parliament is dissolved, there are no MPs.
What does the rulebook say, or is it all up to the Old Lady and the '22 exec?
ETA: if it goes beyond a certain level of pear-shaped, Cameron as next PM becomes a possibility.
I think a bigger blocker might be some of the practical issues like 'what happens to NHS access in the North'?
There seems to be a largish chunk of the Catholic community that wants things to stay the same.
For Ireland to be reunified, there'd have to be a referendum in the 26C too, in which a pro-reunification victory wouldn't be a dead cert.
But it's not as if all Protestants (or whose parents were or are in that category) would vote for the Union.
The Reform UK line is that the Tories are as bad as Labour. Ergo, why should they care about them costing the Tories seats? If a RefUK voter’s focus is on reducing immigration, then one can see their point. The Tories have delivered record immigration: why lend them any aid?
More cynically, Labour are going to win the next election. Which is better for Tice and Farage? A higher Reform vote share and the Tories lose another 20 seats, or the opposite? Saving the Tories a few seats is of no interest to them.
A referendum in the South for unification would be won by Yes. Mainly on the basis of Irish people feeling an obligation to do so.
They will not do so, until and if, they get polling that shows there would be a Yes vote with some kind of margin.
Because I don’t see much evidence and even 2% won’t help a 40% increase in mortgage costs
It may be that renewables are the right answer to our future energy needs - the jury is still out on that. But the idea that it's cheap energy is a complete mirage, as should be obvious to anybody whose been looking at their electricity bills over the last 30 years.
There’s another, slightly older, widow who has now found a new partner and they likewise are not, most of the time, living together. Her children have, again, homes of their own; don’t know whether he had any.
I expect the rate to moderate somewhat but I expect inflation to fall more too resulting in net 2%+ real wage growth. Wage growth would have to collapse to get anywhere near 0.1%.
“ One candidate is too old, mentally unfit to be president: The other’s me. You know he ain’t the same guy that I beat in 2020…But don’t tell him. He thinks he’s running against Barack Obama.
...And another big difference between us — I know what I value most; I'm Jill Biden's husband. And I know her name. ”
What’s the bigger risk for Labour blocking it or letting it pass and against perceived wisdom it’s successful .
The Rwanda bill should be defeated because it is immoral, not just because of gaining some political advantage.
The overwhelming majority of normal people in this country travel by car.
Your real people are presumably fictional, but if not then others in your bubble.
The number one topic normal people are talking about today, annoyingly, is that United beat Liverpool at the weekend. Dammit.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/18/poll-conviction-trump-2024-elections-00147338
While the country is split approximately down the middle politically, there are still a couple of things they agree on.
70% of respondents reject outright Trump's "presidential immunity" argument - and a similar proportion failed to express confidence in the Supreme Court's ability to make the right decision.
A clear, but smaller majority (c.60%) are against the current delay, and say that Trump should still face his trial(s) before the election.
Presumably this disconnection will resolve itself at some point but I'm not clear how and when.
The senile and too old argument is really being taken apart. If they can bring home the message of what they have achieved on the economy it should be easier than 2020.
Transformation is beyond the powers of politicians (global macro factors dominate) and I find the latter type rhetoric to be invariably a mask for brittle xenophobic (or at best nostalgia-based) nationalism.
So far so good. But Reform's problem is that even with Farage's campaigning skills and the kind of media focus he could bring they are unlikely to win any seats in a general election. It's quite possible to imagine their vote share rising to around 15% or even higher but it is spread pretty evenly across the country and there is no evidence that Reform has the kind of grassroots operation that would be required to deliver victories at constituency level. In fact the evidence is the opposite - on the day of the Wellingborough by-election Reform were out campaigning in Irthlingborough, a very pretty village but not actually in the Wellingborough constituency. They have hardly any local councillors and no constituency-level structures comparable to those of the other parties.
And if Reform cannot win seats at Westminster any attempt to supplant the Tories would seem fanciful.
So the other option available to Farage and Tice is to wait until after the election and then take over the remains of the Tory Party and make it into a vehicle for Reform's policies (inasmuch as it isn't already!). In this case their interest is still in a heavy Tory defeat, but not necessarily a complete wipe-out - they want to take over something approaching a functioning party, not a smoking ruin. This is a more realistic strategy I think, and I think Farage understands that. Accordingly I would not expect him to come back as leader of Reform but he will campaign for them at the election and they will stand in every constituency though he will not be a candidate. After the election I think he expects that the Tory membership (which must now consist solely of a few thousand old age pensioners) will turn to him as their saviour and he will be able to bend it to his will.
The USA should not be having this choice.
And it's demonstrable cheaper energy. from 2015-2020m fossil fuels received £80bn in subsidies, renewables received £60bn. I agree that renewables aren't free, but they are a damn sight cheaper than fossil fuels which are eye-wateringly expensive. And that's before you factor in what we'll have to pay to remedy the carbon emissions.
This is equally true of Rwanda and just as stupid
And by the way it isn't 11 times. It's two and a half times according to the World Bank.
"I think the party has just about had it," one senior Conservative figure, a firm supporter of the prime minister, said.
"There's a realisation that there's nothing good left."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68597115
Perhaps Putin's income has? I wonder how much protection money he rakes in personally.
I am a big fan of not burning hydrocarbons and have been for 35 years - because it is a finite and valuable resource. But the idea the world can operate without hydrocarbons in all their other forms and uses is naive and dangerous.
Much as with the LD vote under Clegg, the contradictions in the voting base of the party would only become apparent when they tried to govern.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463.amp
#MakingRussiaGreatAgain
Or maybe it's Dave.
(It is striking how Conservatives are just giving up. What are the current rules on winding up payments?)
And recent increases in output are, presumably, driven by military production which will not improve the living standards of ordinary Russians.