I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. I think that is much more of an issue than the fact he isn't white.
That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Maybe but internationally the perception will be the UK got a non white PM and the voters rejected him by a landslide for white male Starmer. India in particular will not be impressed I suspect
I think a bigger perceptual problem for the Tories is non-white people like Sajid Javid, who are intelligent, hard working, non-offensive to the electorate, and performed generally pretty well at high ranking jobs in government are all offski.
I am not sure the other non-white ones that are rising to the top by default are anywhere near as high quality, which might get that negative perceptive loop.
Must also be noted though that even Obama was only elected by the black vote, most white Americans voted for McCain and Romney. Unfortunately for Rishi the British Hindu vote is not big enough to help get him over the line.
Having said that not much chance of India electing a white PM anytime soon either
Those were the days when US had two candidates that weren't out of their minds. McCain a war hero, a decent guy, but just wrong time / too old. Romney just too out of touch, but not a raving loony mentaller (ok he is a Mormon, but look at how low the bar is these days).
Alternate histories. John Kerry in 2004? A second GHWBush term in 1992? Nixon in 1960? Truman in 1952? Teddy Roosevelt in 1912?
At least 35 people have been killed, including two senior Hamas officials, in Rafah after Israeli air strikes hit a camp for those displaced by the war in Gaza.
Israel’s army said it “struck a Hamas compound in Rafah”, killing Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar, both of whom were senior officials in the occupied West Bank.
"...[vote] for a party that will admittedly oppress and exterminate you, and rob your world of its resources for the furtherment of the Dalek Empire,...but we will at least be honest with you about it..."
I think pollsters have become slightly bored with producing polls frequently during a general election campaign. I'm sure we were getting more than this even as far back as 1992 and 1987. Everyone wants to know how Sunak's proposals have gone down with voters.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
Well, what about Hillary Clinton in 2016 (also 2008)?
Would also mention the Horace Greeley for President campaign in 1868 versus U.S. Grant.
Hillary Clinton made the same mistake in 2016 and 2008, piling up votes where they were not needed while not getting out to the states because she and her team apparently did not understand how the electoral college (or its Dem equivalent for the nomination) worked. You look at that, and some of the losing campaigns of American and Australian electoral consultants in Britain, and you wonder if it is all just snake oil.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
Sometimes a policy which is generally derided turns out quite popular .
We’re assuming that the general public are all over the detail which many don’t bother with . I’ll wait for the next round of polling. You just never know .
In other news John Rentoul is laying into Labours votes for 16 and 17 year olds . His attitude seems to be that no matter how much the Tories try and load the dice in their favour with the voter ID rules the most recent example you shouldn’t try and balance that out or do anything that might help your side .
I really don’t find votes for that age group controversial given it already happens in other countries .
That's a very long list of critics, including the ex-chiefs of the Army and the Navy, a former Conservative defence secretary, and a defence minister in his own Government speaking just before the policy was invented. Utter lunacy.
Sometimes a policy which is generally derided turns out quite popular .
We’re assuming that the general public are all over the detail which many don’t bother with . I’ll wait for the next round of polling. You just never know .
In other news John Rentoul is laying into Labours votes for 16 and 17 year olds . His attitude seems to be that no matter how much the Tories try and load the dice in their favour with the voter ID rules the most recent example you shouldn’t try and balance that out or do anything that might help your side .
I really don’t find votes for that age group controversial given it already happens in other countries .
National Service might poll worse amongst those who are *not* "all over the detail" and assume it is two years in the army, like last time.
And lowering the voting age for partisan advantage also looks bad, although we should note the Conservative Party gained seats in the Welsh Sennedd elections after 16- and 17-year-olds joined the electorate so we should be wary of assuming this change will lock Labour into power (see also Leon passim).
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
Agree. It's the combination of 64 seats and 9.3% that looks a bit suspect.
These seat projections are bound to be all over the place, given that the calculations begin to break down when you dial the Conservative vote share down as low as this.
They are useless and dreadful, but I'll be astonished if they do as badly as 23%. The Conservative Party has never polled below 30% of the popular vote in any General Election, dating right back to its foundation.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
Well, what about Hillary Clinton in 2016 (also 2008)?
Would also mention the Horace Greeley for President campaign in 1868 versus U.S. Grant.
Hillary Clinton made the same mistake in 2016 and 2008, piling up votes where they were not needed while not getting out to the states because she and her team apparently did not understand how the electoral college (or its Dem equivalent for the nomination) worked. You look at that, and some of the losing campaigns of American and Australian electoral consultants in Britain, and you wonder if it is all just snake oil.
In fairness to her 2016 campaign she did spend loads of time and money in PA which she nevertheless lost. If her team had realized that the WI and MI polling was wonky they'd obviously have spent more time and money there, but even if she'd won those states she'd still have lost the election because of PA.
You could argue that she wasted money in TX or wherever but she had quite a lot, and there's an argument that if you have a fundraising advantage you should go on offence to make your adversary spread their more limited resources more thinly too. She could have spent more in PA but at some point you get diminishing returns.
Sometimes a policy which is generally derided turns out quite popular .
We’re assuming that the general public are all over the detail which many don’t bother with . I’ll wait for the next round of polling. You just never know .
In other news John Rentoul is laying into Labours votes for 16 and 17 year olds . His attitude seems to be that no matter how much the Tories try and load the dice in their favour with the voter ID rules the most recent example you shouldn’t try and balance that out or do anything that might help your side .
I really don’t find votes for that age group controversial given it already happens in other countries .
National Service might poll worse amongst those who are *not* "all over the detail" and assume it is two years in the army, like last time.
And lowering the voting age for partisan advantage also looks bad, although we should note the Conservative Party gained seats in the Welsh Sennedd elections after 16- and 17-year-olds joined the electorate so we should be wary of assuming this change will lock Labour into power (see also Leon passim).
As discussed on here passim, the age rules are all over the place (*). Kids have to remain in education or training until they are 18, and now cannot get married until 18, which are two firm lines defining 'adult' from 'child'. Generally, the rules have been trending for *increasing* ages, not decreasing them.
(*) As they always will be, given that kids grow and mature at different rates.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
I'm not sure. The policy may attract as many voters are it repels, which would leave us where we were before, which was 30% is possible.
I will be shocked if it really attracts that many people. It just isn't a serious policy. Now they doubling down in the fantasy.
Its not like saying we will raise IHT threshold (it might be difficult to cost, but it is something that is definitely actionable).
Labour have a phenomenal opportunity here.
47ish% of people under the age of 24 voted, whereas 74% of pensioners voted in 2019.
I cannot think of a policy better placed to get young people off their arses and voting than "vote Labour or it's national service".
There is a huge untapped pool of Labour voters if that 47% can even be brought up to, say, 55%.
Yesterday The FT described 2024 as "the first post TV election" and I really do think a targeted social media campaign aimed at getting out the youth vote could have real cut through this time. "Get off your arses and register, or it's conscription/the gulag for you," fronted by some tiktok influencer nobody over the age of 30 has even heard of but inexplicably has 20 million followers.
Huge opportunity for Labour here. If any policy will get young people off their arses and voting, it's this.
I think it will make only a small difference to youth turnout:
1) Everyone my age assumes that Labour will get in 2) Everyone hates the Tories anyway. Diminishing marginal returns
HOWEVER
Millennials are not swinging right like earlier generations, even as they come into prime voting age . This is basically due to tuition fees and housing tenure - despite all the chat about housebuilding, it's actually the proportions of rent:mortgage:outright that has screwed the Tories.
Now they are just starting the process of alienating GenZ with stuff like National Service. That just serves to extend the wilderness period. At some point, they need to accept that the Boomers will die during the 2030s and that's it for their votes.
Not necessarily at all, rightwingers like Meloni and Poilievre actually lead now with under 30s. A Labour government failing on the economy and increasing their taxes and leading to higher interest rates on their fees and mortgages while also not raising home ownership would soon see many of them switch back.
The Tories also now lead less with pensioners than they did, in France and Canada left Liberals Macron and Trudeau actually poll better with pensioners than the young
That doesn't mean they are any more popular with young people. It just means they have managed to piss off some of their core vote.
The quickest way for the Tories to revive amongst the young is ironically a Labour government. The only time the Tories have won 18 to 35 year olds since Thatcher won them in 1979 and 1983 was under Cameron in 2010 when voters were fed up of Labour and their economic failings in government
Whilst remaining sceptical about the ability of our political class to achieve anything useful, I would nonetheless be fascinated to see how Labour can go about making things any worse for the young than they are now. This is an economy entirely dominated by astronomical housing costs, punishing bills and taxes on earnings, and low wage shit jobs, in which your best chance of escaping a whole life sentence of drudgery is to be born into wealth. Labour might not change any of this, but the Conservatives certainly won't. A stratified system of privilege and the preservation of inherited estates is what they exist to uphold.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
Agree. It's the combination of 64 seats and 9.3% that looks a bit suspect.
These seat projections are bound to be all over the place, given that the calculations begin to break down when you dial the Conservative vote share down as low as this.
They are useless and dreadful, but I'll be astonished if they do as badly as 23%. The Conservative Party has never polled below 30% of the popular vote in any General Election, dating right back to its foundation.
Yes,the LD figure is high, although Baxter is giving 44 off much the same percentage, and we know that doesn't take account of tactical voting, so it is not that crazy.
For the record, I have sold LDs at 36 on Sporting, but not heavily.
With regard to this national service malarky, I expect the 30000 forces bit to be taken up in large measure by the boys and girls in the Officer Cadet Corps of our great public schools. Gap year before Uni, or Sandhurst, etc. What of the remaining 700 000 or so? Many will be working in retail,hospitality,etc where they work throughout all 7 days, with a rotating restday pattern. This usually will mean one full weekend off each month. Are they then to be forced to volunteer on that one weekend? As someone who worked as station staff at LUL I know what that was like, the full weekend off was very important. Not a policy well worked out I would suggest
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
All the people on here and in the media supporting Sunak’s plan have never done a day’s forced labour in their adult lives, unless they’ve been convicted of a criminal offence. The same apples to every MP and minister singing its praises. What have 18 year-olds done wrong to deserve different treatment? The hypocrisy is visible from space.
Yes, other countries have forms of national service. They usually pay conscripts and/or what is required is part of a wider compact the state has with its young people, such as subsidised or free university education, generous welfare provisions or the right to live, work or study in multiple countries. Sometimes it is all of the above.
The Tory plan, of course, offers none of these things. It is a desperate attempt to appeal to older people who never did national service at the expense of younger people who they routinely treat with utter contempt. It is no way to run a country.
All the people on here and in the media supporting Sunak’s plan have never done a day’s forced labour in their adult lives, unless they’ve been convicted of a criminal offence. The same apples to every MP and minister singing its praises. What have 18 year-olds done wrong to deserve different treatment? The hypocrisy is visible from space.
Yes, other countries have forms of national service. They usually pay conscripts and/or what is required is part of a wider compact the state has with its young people, such as subsidised or free university education, generous welfare provisions or the right to live, work or study in multiple countries. Sometimes it is all of the above.
The Tory plan, of course, offers none of these things. It is a desperate attempt to appeal to older people who never did national service at the expense of younger people who they routinely treat with utter contempt. It is no way to run a country.
And it's so transparently a pure electoral gimmick that they don't believe in themselves. Just like the Rwanda con trick.
That's a very long list of critics, including the ex-chiefs of the Army and the Navy, a former Conservative defence secretary, and a defence minister in his own Government speaking just before the policy was invented. Utter lunacy.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
I'm not sure. The policy may attract as many voters are it repels, which would leave us where we were before, which was 30% is possible.
I will be shocked if it really attracts that many people. It just isn't a serious policy. Now they doubling down in the fantasy.
Its not like saying we will raise IHT threshold (it might be difficult to cost, but it is something that is definitely actionable).
Labour have a phenomenal opportunity here.
47ish% of people under the age of 24 voted, whereas 74% of pensioners voted in 2019.
I cannot think of a policy better placed to get young people off their arses and voting than "vote Labour or it's national service".
There is a huge untapped pool of Labour voters if that 47% can even be brought up to, say, 55%.
Yesterday The FT described 2024 as "the first post TV election" and I really do think a targeted social media campaign aimed at getting out the youth vote could have real cut through this time. "Get off your arses and register, or it's conscription/the gulag for you," fronted by some tiktok influencer nobody over the age of 30 has even heard of but inexplicably has 20 million followers.
Huge opportunity for Labour here. If any policy will get young people off their arses and voting, it's this.
I think it will make only a small difference to youth turnout:
1) Everyone my age assumes that Labour will get in 2) Everyone hates the Tories anyway. Diminishing marginal returns
HOWEVER
Millennials are not swinging right like earlier generations, even as they come into prime voting age . This is basically due to tuition fees and housing tenure - despite all the chat about housebuilding, it's actually the proportions of rent:mortgage:outright that has screwed the Tories.
Now they are just starting the process of alienating GenZ with stuff like National Service. That just serves to extend the wilderness period. At some point, they need to accept that the Boomers will die during the 2030s and that's it for their votes.
Not necessarily at all, rightwingers like Meloni and Poilievre actually lead now with under 30s. A Labour government failing on the economy and increasing their taxes and leading to higher interest rates on their fees and mortgages while also not raising home ownership would soon see many of them switch back.
Here on the mean streets of Merano, Meloni has put army vehicles onto the street of an evening, as part of her ‘safe streets’ initiative to keep the hordes of wealthy German and Austrian tourists in order.
All the people on here and in the media supporting Sunak’s plan have never done a day’s forced labour in their adult lives, unless they’ve been convicted of a criminal offence. The same apples to every MP and minister singing its praises. What have 18 year-olds done wrong to deserve different treatment? The hypocrisy is visible from space.
Yes, other countries have forms of national service. They usually pay conscripts and/or what is required is part of a wider compact the state has with its young people, such as subsidised or free university education, generous welfare provisions or the right to live, work or study in multiple countries. Sometimes it is all of the above.
The Tory plan, of course, offers none of these things. It is a desperate attempt to appeal to older people who never did national service at the expense of younger people who they routinely treat with utter contempt. It is no way to run a country.
There is a constituency of older voters who fantasise that/act as if they fought in the Second World War - many of whom, I suspect, belong to the Conservative Party. Few ideas make them harder than an opportunity to toughen up the woke youth by having them brutalised in a barracks.
I'm sorely tempted to suggest that we deploy enforced conscription against them instead, and see how they enjoy the experience of unpaid forced labour. The wails of "it's not fair!" and "but I paid my taxes!" would be bloody deafening.
Honestly this site is pure group think at times, almost entirely aligned to Twitter.
I look forward to talking some of your money.
Curious. Perhaps Harry Cole and the Daily Mail are part of the leftie liberal blob...
No, they are just stupid. Who mentioned “the blob”? Don’t mistake me for a supporter of the government. All that “blob” nonsense is why I want them gone. The culture war idiocy and the JRM notes on desks.
What I am shouting at the sky about is the pathetic, infantile level of debate centred on half truths and lies. People should debate the actual issues and real facts on the ground. But no one wants to. They want to play their silly Twitter games. They want “their side” to win and that’s it.
To be honest, the Labour line on this is better than all this Twitter crap - it’s desperate ill-thought through rubbish.
There is a serious underlying debate though, which is about a proper modern form of national service, modelled after the Scandis, which we will end up doing anyway so we all ought to discuss the pros and cons. But we won’t. There will be silly Twitter jokes now, and then it will just happen three years down the line, and no one will ever have actually debated it.
The proposals are nothing like the Scandis’ schemes. If you want a serious debate, it might be worth engaging with that fact.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
Agree. It's the combination of 64 seats and 9.3% that looks a bit suspect.
It implies tactical voting to a great extent and with some intelligence.
Rather, it's the result of assumptions about that, as part of a pretty complicated model. It would make more sense to criticise the assumptions, rather than just looking at the result and saying it looks unlikely.
On Independent Schools, a short segment of Liz Truss being interviewed on GBN.
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
Yay, let’s tax capital gains the same as income, and watch what little is left of private equity and entrepreneurial activity in the UK disappear overseas pretty much overnight.
On Independent Schools, a short segment of Liz Truss being interviewed on GBN.
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
About 2 or 3% of voters switched from Tories to Reform the day Sunak became PM. I think that probably gives you some idea of the quantities involved.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
And is there an opposite effect - do more Hindus vote for Sunak than you’d otherwise expect? I don’t know but it should be measurable by polling.
Yay, let’s tax capital gains the same as income, and watch what little is left of private equity and entrepreneurial activity in the UK disappear overseas pretty much overnight.
What proportion of capital gains is the result of entrepreneurial activity?
@Samfr As @thhamilton notes it would also make it easier for an immigrant to get a public sector job than a Brit. Just so much genius.
Why would it? Do you have absolutely no critical faculties?
Bit unfair, it's certainly one of the two logical conclusions one can draw.
A. NS Grads from the UK and Immigrants are given first dibs/any chance at all. B. Only NS Grads ... ditto.
And if B happens, don't you think that all the ambassadors and so on will be happy? Just think of all the Brexit deals with lots of welcomes for immigrants to come and work in the UK.
Alternatively:
a) No same Government would even let that happen; so
b) In the “pigs might fly” scenario that the Tories actually won, we have to conclude there will be other, probably quite racists and damaging, restrictions on immigrants.
I actively want this government to lose, I just think facts matter, and it should lose for things that are true. It has many sins in its record.
Mm. But hypothetical facts matter too, as do their inherent illogicalities.
But honestly, suggesting THIS Government, that wants to ship asylum seekers off to Rwanda, would favour immigrants over citizens? It’s someone on Twitter trying to be too clever by half.
The real point to skewer them with is that they haven’t thought through the policy because they know they won’t win.
I get that: but that is what is coming out of our discussion. (And competent exposition of sensible proposals is itself a measure of governmental ability.)
If the policy were to be effective in creating citizens etc. then the potential employers would be recognising its objective merits in the shiny-eyed candidates before the interview panels. Or simply considering the entirety of each candidate. No need to fillet out the bits of, say, selfpconfidence ascribable to National Service specifically.
And crucially - no problems with discrimination and no need to impose penalties on those unfortunate beings who have not been through National Service.
Yet HMG itself - or rather the Tory Party in power - doesn't feel able to do so whether as legislator or as employer. That is rather telling. Of either bad faith, or simply not thinking through its proposals.
The Telegraph are lost at the moment. They don’t know what the country stands for, nor as a result, what they do.
Except for reactionary ranting. This piece doesn’t fall into that category but many others do. This one is just bewildered. Like a child in a playground suddenly discovering she’s all alone and the other pupils have already left on the school trip.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
About 2 or 3% of voters switched from Tories to Reform the day Sunak became PM. I think that probably gives you some idea of the quantities involved.
Maybe, but some will have been hardcore Liz Truss fans who blamed Rishi for her downfall.
With regard to this national service malarky, I expect the 30000 forces bit to be taken up in large measure by the boys and girls in the Officer Cadet Corps of our great public schools. Gap year before Uni, or Sandhurst, etc. What of the remaining 700 000 or so? Many will be working in retail,hospitality,etc where they work throughout all 7 days, with a rotating restday pattern. This usually will mean one full weekend off each month. Are they then to be forced to volunteer on that one weekend? As someone who worked as station staff at LUL I know what that was like, the full weekend off was very important. Not a policy well worked out I would suggest
The other point at issue is whether graduates of Eton etc. will be given an exemption certificate for having already done their share of OTC, Voluntary Service, and so on.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
Class (as defined by social grade) does not correlate with voting intention at all, though that might mean that posh people are just as disgusted with posh politicians as everyone else.
It's all about age, employment status and housing tenure.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Sunak is setting new standards in campaigning.
Low ones, but record lows...
David Herdson asks the question, what happens if you run a campaign as bad as T May. but you start 20 points behind instead of 20 points ahead...
That's a very long list of critics, including the ex-chiefs of the Army and the Navy, a former Conservative defence secretary, and a defence minister in his own Government speaking just before the policy was invented. Utter lunacy.
If Sunak bans smoking where will he find the cigarette packets on which he composes his policies?
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
And is there an opposite effect - do more Hindus vote for Sunak than you’d otherwise expect? I don’t know but it should be measurable by polling.
Not disagreeing, but not easy to measure. We don't vote for PMs but MPs. Just think of Leicester. Is a vote for the Tories there for the local MP or Mr S?
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
About 2 or 3% of voters switched from Tories to Reform the day Sunak became PM. I think that probably gives you some idea of the quantities involved.
Maybe, but some will have been hardcore Liz Truss fans who blamed Rishi for her downfall.
It's possible, but I've met more racists than hardcore Liz Truss fans.
On Independent Schools, a short segment of Liz Truss being interviewed on GBN.
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
I was wondering why Liz Truss would be criticising criticism of a Labour policy, but as it's GB News I couldn't be bothered to click on the link to satisfy my curiosity.
With regard to this national service malarky, I expect the 30000 forces bit to be taken up in large measure by the boys and girls in the Officer Cadet Corps of our great public schools. Gap year before Uni, or Sandhurst, etc. What of the remaining 700 000 or so? Many will be working in retail,hospitality,etc where they work throughout all 7 days, with a rotating restday pattern. This usually will mean one full weekend off each month. Are they then to be forced to volunteer on that one weekend? As someone who worked as station staff at LUL I know what that was like, the full weekend off was very important. Not a policy well worked out I would suggest
The other point at issue is whether graduates of Eton etc. will be given an exemption certificate for having already done their share of OTC, Voluntary Service, and so on.
Of course, you can guarantee there would be exemptions for the right kind of young person.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
That figure for the Lib Dems could be fairly close, I think. They are fighting some seats very seriously indeed, and pulling campaigners away from others. Where I am, whicch on paper looks a decent shot, we have been asked to help in any one of three others.
Is anybody compiling a list of where the different parties have already put out their first leaflet?
On Independent Schools, a short segment of Liz Truss being interviewed on GBN.
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
True - my apologies. I meant Liz Kendall, and was surprised that she was not being more aggressive.
(My excuse: I was distracted by someone repeating my post from a couple of weeks ago about Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak being the two left standing in a "Canada Event".)
FYI The Redfield & Wilton poll will be published at around 5pm UK time, if last week is anything to go by.
In terms of getting a sense of the direction of travel I’d like to wait until at least the end of the week when the bank holiday has shaken out of the system.
Next Friday/Saturday/Sunday we should get a really good idea of the state of play.
Oddly enough, I saw a post somewhere which was claiming that the comments under a Liverpool newspaper article about the national service idea were apparently getting mostly positive responses, which is interesting because of course the city is usually the worst place in the country for the Tories. (Trying to find the article myself atm).
It was the Facebook page of the Liverpool echo. I am not sure "mostly positive' is right.
On Independent Schools, a short segment of Liz Truss being interviewed on GBN.
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
True - my apologies. I meant Liz Kendall, and was surprised that she was not being more aggressive.
(My excuse: I was distracted by someone repeating my post from a couple of weeks ago about Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak being the two left standing in a "Canada Event".)
Probably because as a Blairite she knows it's a dumb idea that's basically to keep left-wingers onside.
It's Starmer's equivalent of a ban on fox hunting, but with rather more damaging consequences.
That's a very long list of critics, including the ex-chiefs of the Army and the Navy, a former Conservative defence secretary, and a defence minister in his own Government speaking just before the policy was invented. Utter lunacy.
If Sunak bans smoking where will he find the cigarette packets on which he composes his policies?
I seriously doubt that Sunak uses cigarette packets. Envelopes seem more like his thing.
I must be young at heart since it seems to be my generation which thinks this is an excellent idea (having skipped it ourselves) but I think that the last thing our young require is another delay in starting out on life. We already have people staying at school until they are 18 and then the majority going on to University or college for another 3-4 years, more in some cases. So, right now, you are looking for your first job in your early 20s. Are we really going to make it mid 20s and what are the pension implications of that?
Its a silly idea. Much better to spend the money giving training so that our young can start to fill our skills gaps ASAP. National service or apprenticeships? It's a no brainer for every sort of reason.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
That figure for the Lib Dems could be fairly close, I think. They are fighting some seats very seriously indeed, and pulling campaigners away from others. Where I am, whicch on paper looks a decent shot, we have been asked to help in any one of three others.
Is anybody compiling a list of where the different parties have already put out their first leaflet?
Well, here in what's now Banbury - but was Witney till now - we got our first (Labour) GE leaflet through the door on the morning of Friday, May 24. About 4 weeks after everyone in the area got a local election leaflet for the Tories - all referring to candidates and issues in completely different parts of the county.
With regard to this national service malarky, I expect the 30000 forces bit to be taken up in large measure by the boys and girls in the Officer Cadet Corps of our great public schools. Gap year before Uni, or Sandhurst, etc. What of the remaining 700 000 or so? Many will be working in retail,hospitality,etc where they work throughout all 7 days, with a rotating restday pattern. This usually will mean one full weekend off each month. Are they then to be forced to volunteer on that one weekend? As someone who worked as station staff at LUL I know what that was like, the full weekend off was very important. Not a policy well worked out I would suggest
The other point at issue is whether graduates of Eton etc. will be given an exemption certificate for having already done their share of OTC, Voluntary Service, and so on.
In the vanishingly unlikely event of a Tory victory, they'd most likely devise a system of financial sanctions for refusers - enough to really hurt pleb families but loose change for the rich.
Morning all. On 'Worst campaign EVAH' we had polling on this yesterday. Deltapoll had it 40 Starmer 18 Sunak for better campaign so far (and fwiw slightly higher 'right to announce in the rain' than wrong) so identical to the headline vote lead.
I must be young at heart since it seems to be my generation which thinks this is an excellent idea (having skipped it ourselves) but I think that the last thing our young require is another delay in starting out on life. We already have people staying at school until they are 18 and then the majority going on to University or college for another 3-4 years, more in some cases. So, right now, you are looking for your first job in your early 20s. Are we really going to make it mid 20s and what are the pension implications of that?
Its a silly idea. Much better to spend the money giving training so that our young can start to fill our skills gaps ASAP. National service or apprenticeships? It's a no brainer for every sort of reason.
A government idea linked to education is silly?
Have you seen that bear heading to the woods? It's just possible she might be taking a shit.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
That figure for the Lib Dems could be fairly close, I think. They are fighting some seats very seriously indeed, and pulling campaigners away from others. Where I am, whicch on paper looks a decent shot, we have been asked to help in any one of three others.
Is anybody compiling a list of where the different parties have already put out their first leaflet?
Well, here in what's now Banbury - but was Witney till now - we got our first (Labour) GE leaflet through the door on the morning of Friday, May 24. About 4 weeks after everyone in the area got a local election leaflet for the Tories - all referring to candidates and issues in completely different parts of the county.
We've not had any post announcement leaflets yet. We did get a few before from the Tory explaining how he was the only person who could defeat the SNP.
Scottish politics is, I think, exceptionally negative. It is we are the only people who can beat the Tory or the SNP. Even when we were in Dundee West, which was firstly a safe Labour seat and then a very safe SNP seat it was all about beating the Tories. Positive reasons to vote for a party, other than independence in the SNP case, are like hens teeth. Is it like this everywhere?
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
According to Betfair, the Tories have a 93% chance of being the largest party excluding Labour. Lib Dems have a 7% chance.
So a 7% chance that it will be the Lib Dems as the main Opposition sitting opposite 400+ squashed Labour MPS, with the few dozen Tories sitting with the diminished SNP off to the side.
Agreed the LD's probably sub 50 but not impossible.... Green's lucky to get one IMO (Ref seems about right)
That figure for the Lib Dems could be fairly close, I think. They are fighting some seats very seriously indeed, and pulling campaigners away from others. Where I am, whicch on paper looks a decent shot, we have been asked to help in any one of three others.
Is anybody compiling a list of where the different parties have already put out their first leaflet?
Well, here in what's now Banbury - but was Witney till now - we got our first (Labour) GE leaflet through the door on the morning of Friday, May 24. About 4 weeks after everyone in the area got a local election leaflet for the Tories - all referring to candidates and issues in completely different parts of the county.
Conservative mailshots and leaflets, SNP canvassers in recent weeks. Nothing since the election was called. Not a sniff from other parties, but that's no surprise since they're starting from basically zero here.
The Green versus Labour placard race has not yet begun in the peoples republic of Clive Lewis either
FYI The Redfield & Wilton poll will be published at around 5pm UK time, if last week is anything to go by.
In terms of getting a sense of the direction of travel I’d like to wait until at least the end of the week when the bank holiday has shaken out of the system.
Next Friday/Saturday/Sunday we should get a really good idea of the state of play.
I’d be amazed if there is any significant travel either way. I just feel people have made their minds up and that is that.
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
And is there an opposite effect - do more Hindus vote for Sunak than you’d otherwise expect? I don’t know but it should be measurable by polling.
Not disagreeing, but not easy to measure. We don't vote for PMs but MPs. Just think of Leicester. Is a vote for the Tories there for the local MP or Mr S?
Sunak is popular with some Hindus in Leicester, less so with Sikhs and Muslims. I have a few Hindu colleagues who think him great, but they were all Tory voters already.
It's a bit hard to disentangle from some of the other voting trends locally, including the Hindutva vs Muslim protests a couple of years back, and Soulsbys purge of Labour councillors., but some positive benefit.
I think there is some racism against Sunak driving the Reform vote, but only counting for a couple of percent.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
No doubt he is, but the question is whether he will gain more voters on the right than he alienates in the centre.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
When I become benign dictator, the phrase "performative outrage" will land you a week in the stocks.
Sometimes outrage is entirely genuine and justified, and this seems like one such occasion.
I'll take that week graciously. Yes, it is, you are correct and some will hate NS with a passion. Theres still been some Supporting Actor award worthy posting on socials though
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
When I become benign dictator, the phrase "performative outrage" will land you a week in the stocks.
Sometimes outrage is entirely genuine and justified, and this seems like one such occasion.
William: "I'm sure we can all pull together, sir." Vetinari: "Oh, I do hope not. Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."
That's a very long list of critics, including the ex-chiefs of the Army and the Navy, a former Conservative defence secretary, and a defence minister in his own Government speaking just before the policy was invented. Utter lunacy.
If Sunak bans smoking where will he find the cigarette packets on which he composes his policies?
I seriously doubt that Sunak uses cigarette packets. Envelopes seem more like his thing.
One for the memoirs is how, where and why Rishi's national service policy arose.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
No doubt he is, but the question is whether he will gain more voters on the right than he alienates in the centre.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
That depends on the polling. JL Partners had one in early May that was 42 34 in favour. The idea that NS is seen as some sort of dystopian horror to the majority is simply not the case.
FYI The Redfield & Wilton poll will be published at around 5pm UK time, if last week is anything to go by.
In terms of getting a sense of the direction of travel I’d like to wait until at least the end of the week when the bank holiday has shaken out of the system.
Next Friday/Saturday/Sunday we should get a really good idea of the state of play.
I’d be amazed if there is any significant travel either way. I just feel people have made their minds up and that is that.
FYI The Redfield & Wilton poll will be published at around 5pm UK time, if last week is anything to go by.
In terms of getting a sense of the direction of travel I’d like to wait until at least the end of the week when the bank holiday has shaken out of the system.
Next Friday/Saturday/Sunday we should get a really good idea of the state of play.
I’d be amazed if there is any significant travel either way. I just feel people have made their minds up and that is that.
Yes, I think most have made their mind up and just waiting for the day. That's generally the case I would think in most campaigns. It's not us political nerds that campaigns get to switch, but about getting out the core vote, and trying to persuade low engagement voters.
I haven't decided yet between LD and Green. I am in a very safe Tory seat, with Labour a distant second. On current polling it could flip Labour (true almost everywhere!), but does Labour really need a 250 seat majority?
I was reasonably confident when the GE was called that the Tories would eventually poll 30% with a enough scare the horses attacks on Starmer, stick with nurse as economy is turning corner and standard Tory type offering.
Seems highly unlikely now.
Closer to 20 than 30 I think is now possible. 25 if they do well.
What is the lowest Tory score in modern history?
If modern is since 1918, it's 31% for Major in 1997. In 1832 the Tories polled 29.2% under Wellington.
Yeah they are going to beat that to the downside this time around.
Unfortunately if the first non white PM gets the lowest voteshare for his party since universal suffrage I fear that kills off the likelihood of an ethnic minority leader leading the Conservatives again for a generation. It probably doesn't help the chances of non white potential Labour leaders either
I really don't think Sunak being non-white is effecting the Tory vote share. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, having a incredibly wealthy PM at the moment isn't a good look, which isn't help by his gaffes where he looks very out of touch. That's before we get to the inflation, interest rates, Brexit, and awful campaign.
Agree. I often forget that Sunak is the first non-white PM. It’s hardly ever remarked upon.
One one hand, this says very good things about today's Britain the British, individually and collectively.
On other hand, it speaks ill of Rishi Sunak's seeming inability to get any boost let alone traction from his historic status; unlike Margaret Thatcher who clearly DID get a bump from being the first woman PM, all while NOT dwelling on it herself - just doing it.
Part and parcel of his under-performance as a politico, in No. 10 or on the campaign trail.
Re: the first point, think the same is true of conservative Republicans who are willing and able to vote for and actually elect fellow conservatives who are People of Color (as well say in the USA) as Governors, Senators and even Presidents & Vice Presidents.
My own observation, is that, at least in US, voters do NOT object to minority-group candidates who sometimes talk about their heritage and ethnicity, religion, national origin, and occasionally act upon it. For example, when Nikki Haley ordered the lowering of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and Tim Scott strongly supported this. Local and national conservatives, including Trump supporters, mostly also supported or at least went along.
As for White progressives & liberals, they are very open to electing minority candidates, indeed many would prefer to vote for a Black, Asian, Native American, Muslim, etc. candidate if that's a resonable option; indeed, can be a big help in a crowded field and/or tight race.
Sunak's problem, and Britsin's for that matter, is not racism. It is classism. We've had quite enough of the posh, English public schoolboy being in charge.
People seem to state this with a lot of confidence, but I'm not so sure. It's kinda hard to gather evidence for this, since if you directly ask someone whether they would downgrade a candidate due to their ethnicity, they will say no, even if they would.
It's 100% certain that there are SOME people whose vote will be affected by racism. But how do you quantify it?
And is there an opposite effect - do more Hindus vote for Sunak than you’d otherwise expect? I don’t know but it should be measurable by polling.
Not disagreeing, but not easy to measure. We don't vote for PMs but MPs. Just think of Leicester. Is a vote for the Tories there for the local MP or Mr S?
Sunak is popular with some Hindus in Leicester, less so with Sikhs and Muslims. I have a few Hindu colleagues who think him great, but they were all Tory voters already.
It's a bit hard to disentangle from some of the other voting trends locally, including the Hindutva vs Muslim protests a couple of years back, and Soulsbys purge of Labour councillors., but some positive benefit.
I think there is some racism against Sunak driving the Reform vote, but only counting for a couple of percent.
Thanks. Regrettable, the latter point. Though two percentage points comprise a fair chunk of the Reform vote - and not to be sneezed at if one is a Tory at present.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
No doubt he is, but the question is whether he will gain more voters on the right than he alienates in the centre.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
That depends on the polling. JL Partners had one in early May that was 42 34 in favour. The idea that NS is seen as some sort of dystopian horror to the majority is simply not the case.
?
I said it had minority support. 42% is a minority, isn't it?
We'll see whether there is any noticeable improvement in Tory polling over the next few days. But I very much doubt it.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
No doubt he is, but the question is whether he will gain more voters on the right than he alienates in the centre.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
That depends on the polling. JL Partners had one in early May that was 42 34 in favour. The idea that NS is seen as some sort of dystopian horror to the majority is simply not the case.
?
I said it had minority support. 42% is a minority, isn't it?
We'll see whether there is any noticeable improvement in Tory polling over the next few days. But I very much doubt it.
Well, yes, but minority opposition as well. They arent running a 51% strategy, nobody is.
Performative outrage on socials and newspaper comment sections in a GE campaign tells us nothing really. Hes clearly after the voters that will be nodding or muttering 'bloody right' under their breath. And not to win, to lose respectably and give Labour a really tough term to negotiate
No doubt he is, but the question is whether he will gain more voters on the right than he alienates in the centre.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
That depends on the polling. JL Partners had one in early May that was 42 34 in favour. The idea that NS is seen as some sort of dystopian horror to the majority is simply not the case.
?
I said it had minority support. 42% is a minority, isn't it?
We'll see whether there is any noticeable improvement in Tory polling over the next few days. But I very much doubt it.
The more important thing maybe that it's what Blair called a 20 second answer rather than a 3 minute one. In that the notion itself is relatively (but not massively) popular when mooted - especially with a certain group of voters. But once you drill down into the detail of costs, how it would work and what it's supposed to do, it becomes far less so.
Such as, is it really a good use of army resources to house and kit out 30,000 raw recruits, most of whom it then loses, each year?
The obvious question Tories are now coming unstuck on now is enforcement - barring people who don't do it from public sector jobs is completely crackers when we have staff shortages. Fines will be a charter to allow the rich to opt out (which would quickly make the policy toxic). We're not jailing people. Prosecuting parents over their adult children is insane.
That being the case, in what sense will it be mandatory if all your options for penalties are draconian, self-defeating or deeply unfair?
Are the costings robust? £2.5bn seems unbelievably low for a mass volunteering scheme and paying and kitting out 30,000 new soldiers each year.
Then there's safeguarding. One reason voluntary schemes are easier to run is that you don't have to deal with those who are unsuited to jobs or who might be actively dangerous but forced to be there. You'll need to have a whole beefed up vetting and complaints system. Plus some kind of discipline procedure beyond kicking someone who misbehaves off - otherwise it's your get out.
If journalists ask these questions then support understandably dips. Heck. Even asking "Would you rather this £2.5bn went on this scheme or the NHS?" probably does the same. I know the Yorkshire Post are already running stories about the cuts to the levelling up fund it's pilfered from.
I must be young at heart since it seems to be my generation which thinks this is an excellent idea (having skipped it ourselves) but I think that the last thing our young require is another delay in starting out on life. We already have people staying at school until they are 18 and then the majority going on to University or college for another 3-4 years, more in some cases. So, right now, you are looking for your first job in your early 20s. Are we really going to make it mid 20s and what are the pension implications of that?
Its a silly idea. Much better to spend the money giving training so that our young can start to fill our skills gaps ASAP. National service or apprenticeships? It's a no brainer for every sort of reason.
I must sadly agree. One of the really sad things we have done over the past decades is to blur the line between children and adults, with the inevitable infantilized adults. Education is a process designed to enable children to become independent when they achieve adulthood, so that they can get a job, form relationships, have children of their own, buy a house, and raise them. By pushing each stage back into their 20s and 30s we are disabling them.
Your apprenticeships idea is a good one and would help cure this problem.
Comments
Israel’s army said it “struck a Hamas compound in Rafah”, killing Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar, both of whom were senior officials in the occupied West Bank.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/26/at-least-20-palestinians-killed-as-air-strikes-hit-rafah/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4-X8-luDLc
"...[vote] for a party that will admittedly oppress and exterminate you, and rob your world of its resources for the furtherment of the Dalek Empire,...but we will at least be honest with you about it..."
Contrary to expectations, in British politics authenticity is banishing bland centrism
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/26/david-cameron-this-election-biggest-loser/ (£££)
Lab 417 (45.2%)
Con 124 (23.0%)
LD 64 (9.3%)
Green 1 (5.6%)
Ref 0 (11.5%)
SNP 22 (35.0% in Scotland)
PC 3 (13.7% in Wales)
Oth 1 (5.3%)
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
Those LD figures look a bit unlikely imo.
Mercer has blasted critics of the scheme, such as the BBC"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28147705/national-service-sense-duty-johnny-mercer/
The second worst part? Has the BBC actually criticised the scheme?
We’re assuming that the general public are all over the detail which many don’t bother with . I’ll wait for the next round of polling. You just never know .
In other news John Rentoul is laying into Labours votes for 16 and 17 year olds . His attitude seems to be that no matter how much the Tories try and load the dice in their favour with the voter ID rules the most recent example you shouldn’t try and balance that out or do anything that might help your side .
I really don’t find votes for that age group controversial given it already happens in other countries .
Off out to have a look at the new East-West cycle track in Chesterfield.
At least one made more likely, presumably - Ashfield.
Full piece:https://archive.ph/fhfsu
And lowering the voting age for partisan advantage also looks bad, although we should note the Conservative Party gained seats in the Welsh Sennedd elections after 16- and 17-year-olds joined the electorate so we should be wary of assuming this change will lock Labour into power (see also Leon passim).
They are useless and dreadful, but I'll be astonished if they do as badly as 23%. The Conservative Party has never polled below 30% of the popular vote in any General Election, dating right back to its foundation.
You could argue that she wasted money in TX or wherever but she had quite a lot, and there's an argument that if you have a fundraising advantage you should go on offence to make your adversary spread their more limited resources more thinly too. She could have spent more in PA but at some point you get diminishing returns.
(*) As they always will be, given that kids grow and mature at different rates.
For the record, I have sold LDs at 36 on Sporting, but not heavily.
This usually will mean one full weekend off each month. Are they then to be forced to volunteer on that one weekend?
As someone who worked as station staff at LUL I know what that was like, the full weekend off was very important. Not a policy well worked out I would suggest
Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, perhaps?
Yes, other countries have forms of national service. They usually pay conscripts and/or what is required is part of a wider compact the state has with its young people, such as subsidised or free university education, generous welfare provisions or the right to live, work or study in multiple countries. Sometimes it is all of the above.
The Tory plan, of course, offers none of these things. It is a desperate attempt to appeal to older people who never did national service at the expense of younger people who they routinely treat with utter contempt. It is no way to run a country.
I'm sorely tempted to suggest that we deploy enforced conscription against them instead, and see how they enjoy the experience of unpaid forced labour. The wails of "it's not fair!" and "but I paid my taxes!" would be bloody deafening.
A lenient tax treatment of private equity executives’ profits has helped some of the wealthiest workers in Britain to reduce their tax bills
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-loophole-hands-4bn-to-private-equity-m50pr6td0 (£££)
They were going in with "how will the State Sector cope with the extra, let's say, 10k children."
I'm surprised how diffident she was, when she could have monstered them - especially by pointing how the demographics are shifting downwards in the age groups far more than the numbers of extra kids suggested.
But it could have been "There are 25k schools in England, so that is less than half a child per school - are you REALLY suggesting that that is a major capacity problem?"
She didn't - which is surprising, especially on GBN, who always need a whack on their sawdust filled bonce with a cluebat .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAEbhAqsXec
If the policy were to be effective in creating citizens etc. then the potential employers would be recognising its objective merits in the shiny-eyed candidates before the interview panels. Or simply considering the entirety of each candidate. No need to fillet out the bits of, say, selfpconfidence ascribable to National Service specifically.
And crucially - no problems with discrimination and no need to impose penalties on those unfortunate beings who have not been through National Service.
Yet HMG itself - or rather the Tory Party in power - doesn't feel able to do so whether as legislator or as employer. That is rather telling. Of either bad faith, or simply not thinking through its proposals.
The Telegraph are lost at the moment. They don’t know what the country stands for, nor as a result, what they do.
Except for reactionary ranting. This piece doesn’t fall into that category but many others do. This one is just bewildered. Like a child in a playground suddenly discovering she’s all alone and the other pupils have already left on the school trip.
It's all about age, employment status and housing tenure.
Is anybody compiling a list of where the different parties have already put out their first leaflet?
(My excuse: I was distracted by someone repeating my post from a couple of weeks ago about Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak being the two left standing in a "Canada Event".)
Next Friday/Saturday/Sunday we should get a really good idea of the state of play.
It's Starmer's equivalent of a ban on fox hunting, but with rather more damaging consequences.
Its a silly idea. Much better to spend the money giving training so that our young can start to fill our skills gaps ASAP. National service or apprenticeships? It's a no brainer for every sort of reason.
On 'Worst campaign EVAH' we had polling on this yesterday. Deltapoll had it 40 Starmer 18 Sunak for better campaign so far (and fwiw slightly higher 'right to announce in the rain' than wrong) so identical to the headline vote lead.
Have you seen that bear heading to the woods? It's just possible she might be taking a shit.
The SNP got 43 seats with less than 4% share overall.
The Reform Party will likely get zero seats with say 9% share.
It all depends on the concentration. National share is very misleading on its own.
Scottish politics is, I think, exceptionally negative. It is we are the only people who can beat the Tory or the SNP. Even when we were in Dundee West, which was firstly a safe Labour seat and then a very safe SNP seat it was all about beating the Tories. Positive reasons to vote for a party, other than independence in the SNP case, are like hens teeth. Is it like this everywhere?
https://x.com/WhitbyHarvey/status/1794841045588689186
(There are far better photos of Liz Truss in page one of Google than Liz Kendall.)
So a 7% chance that it will be the Lib Dems as the main Opposition sitting opposite 400+ squashed Labour MPS, with the few dozen Tories sitting with the diminished SNP off to the side.
Reminder this was the government’s official position a full four days ago
https://x.com/aljwhite/status/1794991653972795452
And here is Johnny Mercer, a week ago
https://x.com/HarryAldridge88/status/1794882449065086990
It's a bit hard to disentangle from some of the other voting trends locally, including the Hindutva vs Muslim protests a couple of years back, and Soulsbys purge of Labour councillors., but some positive benefit.
I think there is some racism against Sunak driving the Reform vote, but only counting for a couple of percent.
Given that polling indicates only minority support for any kind of compulsory national service, I can't understand why people assume this will be a net positive for the Tories.
NEW THREAD
I haven't decided yet between LD and Green. I am in a very safe Tory seat, with Labour a distant second. On current polling it could flip Labour (true almost everywhere!), but does Labour really need a 250 seat majority?
I said it had minority support. 42% is a minority, isn't it?
We'll see whether there is any noticeable improvement in Tory polling over the next few days. But I very much doubt it.
Such as, is it really a good use of army resources to house and kit out 30,000 raw recruits, most of whom it then loses, each year?
The obvious question Tories are now coming unstuck on now is enforcement - barring people who don't do it from public sector jobs is completely crackers when we have staff shortages. Fines will be a charter to allow the rich to opt out (which would quickly make the policy toxic). We're not jailing people. Prosecuting parents over their adult children is insane.
That being the case, in what sense will it be mandatory if all your options for penalties are draconian, self-defeating or deeply unfair?
Are the costings robust? £2.5bn seems unbelievably low for a mass volunteering scheme and paying and kitting out 30,000 new soldiers each year.
Then there's safeguarding. One reason voluntary schemes are easier to run is that you don't have to deal with those who are unsuited to jobs or who might be actively dangerous but forced to be there. You'll need to have a whole beefed up vetting and complaints system. Plus some kind of discipline procedure beyond kicking someone who misbehaves off - otherwise it's your get out.
If journalists ask these questions then support understandably dips. Heck. Even asking "Would you rather this £2.5bn went on this scheme or the NHS?" probably does the same. I know the Yorkshire Post are already running stories about the cuts to the levelling up fund it's pilfered from.
Your apprenticeships idea is a good one and would help cure this problem.