If you Baxter the YouGov poll based on their previous methodology, this is the result:
Party - Share - Seats CON - 18.0% - 19 LAB - 45.0% - 546 LIB - 8.0% - 47 Reform - 18.0% - 0 Green - 6.0% - 2 SNP - 3.1% - 14 PlaidC - 0.7% - 4
So 36% of the UK voters vote for a right of centre party but they get just 2% of the MPs?
As I said, dividing the right under FPTP is suicide, unless Reform and the Tories merge they may as well both back PR
No, Reform can replace the Tories. That is the aim
Which does make the Reform wannabee Tories practically bending over for them a bit sad. Maybe they should be sent that clip from Darkest Hour about not reasoning with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.
But it will be fun if the Tories become supportive of PR whilst Labour, who are more divided on the matter anyway, decide its too much trouble to change the voting system.
Political parties are not nations. They are just vehicles to achieve a particular political outcome.
Maybe we are too sentimental about them here and should be more like the French.
Maybe we’re too sentimental about the monarchy too.
No, we don't want a politician head of state
I reckon Chucky could win the election hands down. Best of both worlds, surely.
If you Baxter the YouGov poll based on their previous methodology, this is the result:
Party - Share - Seats CON - 18.0% - 19 LAB - 45.0% - 546 LIB - 8.0% - 47 Reform - 18.0% - 0 Green - 6.0% - 2 SNP - 3.1% - 14 PlaidC - 0.7% - 4
So 36% of the UK voters vote for a right of centre party but they get just 2% of the MPs?
As I said, dividing the right under FPTP is suicide, unless Reform and the Tories merge they may as well both back PR
No, Reform can replace the Tories. That is the aim
Under FPTP the only result of Reform overtaking the Tories is likely 10-20 years of continued Labour majority government under FPTP shifting us ever more Woke in direction.
Unless Reform not only replace but merge with the Tories that is the end result of FPTP of a divided right. It is only viable to have separate Reform and Tory Parties both getting 15-25% of the vote with PR
If Reform overtake the Tories there’s no way they stay distinct entities. They’ll swallow each other, and the dissatisfied centrists will go over to Labour or the LDs.
The Canadian Tories stayed a separate entity from Reform there for 10 years after Reform overtook them on votes and seats in 1993. Indeed in 1997 the Canadian Tories actually gained 18 seats on 1993 and increased their voteshare to 18.8%, just behind Reform on 19.3%, under Jean Charest before falling back again in 2000.
Of course their combined coalition which forms today's Conservative Party of Canada is now 40%+ in the latest Canadian polls and heading for a majority under Leader Poilievre over PM Trudeau's Liberals, so united they can win centrist swing voters too (even if the wettest Canadian Tories went Liberal after the Canadian Tory merger with Reform's successor the Alliance in 2003), divided they can't
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
The lie is that taxes aren't going to increase.
And all the parties are making it.
So why is it none of the parties can be honest about tax rises? The answer, simply, is the media won't allow that honesty. We've had 40-50 years of dishonesty on tax - the continuous worship of Laffer and the notion aspiration is killed off by increased taxes.
The other aside is who gets to pay more tax - the wealthy, who can always find or buy people to speak for them, claim they pay too much and can't pay any more - that is nonsense. There's the implied threat (and we've heard it from a few on here) that the wealth will move abroad to a more sympathetic Government.
It is that fear of a wealth exodus which in turn maintains and support the dishonesty.
The third aspect is no one believes the Government would effectively spend or use the additional tax revenue - would our schools, libraries, hospitals be better if there was more money?
Then there's the immigration conundrum - let's have fewer prople coming in, fewer people working, fewer people paying tax and see where that gets us.
The dishonesty isn't just with the parties, it's with many of the voters as well.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
The lie is that taxes aren't going to increase.
And all the parties are making it.
I think it's a complete and total lie that Labour are going to raise our taxes by £2,000.
It's going to be much more than that.
No need. 😁Tories have built in the fiscal drag for the government to take at least £35B from us in the coming years anyway, even more if a government can achieve growth. Labour do nothing, just allow Rishi’s built in fiscal drag to happen and pull in the stealth tax equivalent of 5p rise in National Insurance.
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
You're doing it wrong: you need to say £2,000 every time you write a post like this.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
No you have it wrong
Sky today also called out Labour for their dodgy dossier ( words used) of Labour's claim about the conservative NI proposals with Ed Conway slide charts demonstrating the dodgy workings and then ITV ended their report by saying nobody is addressing the 40 billion the independent IFS have declared a tax shortfall
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
The lie is that taxes aren't going to increase.
And all the parties are making it.
I think it's a complete and total lie that Labour are going to raise our taxes by £2,000.
It's going to be much more than that.
No need. 😁Tories have built in the fiscal drag for the government to take at least £35B from us in the coming years anyway, even more if a government can achieve growth. Labour do nothing, just allow Rishi’s built in fiscal drag to happen and pull in the stealth tax equivalent of 5p rise in National Insurance.
Have I missed a new PB rule where @BartholomewRoberts allowed to “reallocate” polls he personally doesn’t like?
Can we all do this? I’d like to “reallocate” the last Opinium so the SNP are on minus 5. Thanks
Have I missed a new PB rule that we can't make our own predictions?
It's a betting site, to bet you need to be making predictions.
I gave my prediction to my own username and never implied it was anyone else's work, it's just my best guess with the date and evidence and logic I have. For reasons others have subsequently acknowledged are reasonable. If you don't, that's entirely fair, but I'm explaining my thinking.
Leon was being Leon.
I see no problem with you taking the figures and showing how you were changing them to reflect the fact Reform / Green figures are implausibly high - it's what I've done for a while albeit I operate on the basis that most reform voters won't actually go out and vote...
No, you’re both proving OGH’s golden rule: a rogue poll is a poll whose numbers you do not like
I never said its a rogue poll.
I just think its wrong and and have explained why.
Since the Brexit Referendum the Reform Party's predecessors have been wildly overestimated by the polls.
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2019 the Brexit Party was polling 9%, they ended on 2.0% In the same gap between polling day and now in 2017 UKIP was polling 12%, they ended on 1.9%
Its eminently reasonable to make predictions on how things might change between a poll and the actual results.
A lot of people thinking “Reform *surely* can’t get around 20%” are ignoring 3 things for me.
1) A few weeks of Farage on the TV, and more potential polls showing the Tories very far behind Labour, might make a lot of voters think “Sod it, I’m voting Reform”. Farage’s stated strategy is to reverse takeover the Tory Party - on Friday he might explicitly say “Rishi Sunak won’t be PM, but in a few years, I could be”
2) The 2019 European elections are of course not the same type or election nor political climate as now, but we saw 30% of votes go to the BXP in that. Another election where people thought “Well, the Tories can’t win anyway, and what’s the point”.
3) A lot of current Tory voters may warm to the LDs once Ed Davey gets a chance to be on TV a bit more in the campaign, and if the Tories look more defeated. This could swing a lot of Tory/LD marginals.
This is not to say it *will* happen but it certainly *can*.
I think Farage is extremely Marmite. Brexit is now very unpopular, so I really can't see what is driving this supposed surge for Reform. It feels off, but let's see what the next week brings.
I think you're conflating brexit with immigration, there.
Brexit was winnable because it was a broad coalition - ranging from Bennite lefties who think the EU is a neoliberal plot to drive down the wages of the working class (Corbyn was arguably one of them, which is why he stayed so silent) to Singapore-on-Thames style deregulatory hyper-capitalists, to people worried about democratic accountability (Lisbon treaty etc), and yes, a substantial chunk whose main concern was freedom of movement, or simply, immigration. That got Brexit to the famous 52%.
Immigration alone probably gets ReFUK to 20%. As a socially conservative leaning anti-immigration party, you're not going to vote Labour - and given the Tories have presided over the largest immigration figures in recent history, despite Brexit, you're not going to vote for them either. So where do you turn? Good old Nige, and good old UKIP, err, ReFUK.
If immigration is your #1 issue, which it clearly is for a lot of voters - Nige is your man. I could believe crossover at some point, if only for a poll or two.
The Tories have presided over the largest numbers of immigrants in ALL history, not “recent history”
Indeed the influx is so huge it is hard to find a precedent in the modern world in peacetime, tho Trudeau is having a bash in Canada
..which was ofcourse predicted by large numbers of people on the centre-left when so many European workers left over five years.
Brexit is part of the *cause* of this big increase, just as predicted, but mainly of non-European migrants that Brexit voters like even less ; so, very comvincingly, one could say that Brexit is a key part of that betrayal of one particular group of voters, itself.
How is Brexit related to figures like this?
Well, it can be seen from this graph. An accelerating and exponential, and often desperate governmental response after 2020, when the legal break with the EU occurred, to many, many areas of reduced expertise following Brexit.
There's litttle controversy between many people charting the rise, that Brexit was a key part of it.
Correlation isn't causation. Unless you are arguing that Brexit facilitated an extremely liberal government to come to power in the form of Boris Johnson, but that's the opposite of the case that is usually made against him.
Well, AFAIK the new visa schemes for certain categories of worker started under Johnson, and accelerated under Sunak.
You have fill those vacancies somehow, and lost european immigration is inevitably a key, if not the key cause, if you accept that governments can not fill lost expertise with training British-born people overnight, as the Tories always knew, but pretended not to.
You don't *have* to fill those vacancies. Force different potential employers to compete with each other for labour and put workers in a stronger bargaining position. If we'd had a tighter labour market, our levels of productivity probably wouldn't be so bad.
Your attitude is symptomatic of a country run in the interests of pensioners and owners of capital.
You do have to fill social care jobs, you rapidly get to the point that you don't have a business if you don't have the appropriate staff numbers 24/7
Well then you offer your staff highet wages. I think it's universally recognised that cate staff do a job many of us would not want to for a lower wage than many of us would accept. The answer to this isn't to import more people from the third world to keep wages low.
That doesn't work because councils pay fixed rates - and the maths quickly doesn't work. Which is why social care has an exemption to the wages criteria...
... to which there is an obvious solution. Why is the state trying to drive down the wages of already underpaid workers?
Because based on that debate, and the TMay uproar in the 2017 election, Brits would rather solve this problem cheaply.
We'd rather not solve it at all, because it's hard. Eventually we won't be able to fool ourselves that will work with a bit of papering over cracks.
I don’t think many of you are considering what a soundbite it would be if Starmer said “Yes I would go Private” or anything even like that.
He would be slated massively by the left, it would be repeated constantly at him, it would undermine Labour as the ‘party of the NHS’ which is electorally very significant to them. It would probably be the main story from the debate rather than the £2,000 figure.
The above would apply even if he gave a more nuanced response.
Whereas his actual answer meant it became a relative non issue.
Biggest winner / loser of the campaign so far....The tart independent business woman with the OF account for both categories.
Did you see one of the pitch invaders at Wembley last Saturday did it because some bloke online said he'd give a load of money to anyone who got on the pitch with a shirt advertising the guy's website or something?
Yes. Was it actually a legit offer, or has somebody got themselves a football banning order for nought?
I don't know, but my guess is he won't be getting his money.
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
The lie is that taxes aren't going to increase.
And all the parties are making it.
So why is it none of the parties can be honest about tax rises? The answer, simply, is the media won't allow that honesty. We've had 40-50 years of dishonesty on tax - the continuous worship of Laffer and the notion aspiration is killed off by increased taxes.
The other aside is who gets to pay more tax - the wealthy, who can always find or buy people to speak for them, claim they pay too much and can't pay any more - that is nonsense. There's the implied threat (and we've heard it from a few on here) that the wealth will move abroad to a more sympathetic Government.
It is that fear of a wealth exodus which in turn maintains and support the dishonesty.
The third aspect is no one believes the Government would effectively spend or use the additional tax revenue - would our schools, libraries, hospitals be better if there was more money?
Then there's the immigration conundrum - let's have fewer prople coming in, fewer people working, fewer people paying tax and see where that gets us.
The dishonesty isn't just with the parties, it's with many of the voters as well.
Under FPTP the only result of Reform overtaking the Tories is likely 10-20 years of continued Labour majority government under FPTP shifting us ever more Woke in direction.
Unless Reform not only replace but merge with the Tories that is the end result of FPTP of a divided right. It is only viable to have separate Reform and Tory Parties both getting 15-25% of the vote with PR
I have never been a fan of FPTP because I believe it drives negative campaigning and encourages people to vote against things. I had an exchange with my (Tory) MP about it a few years back who followed the Tory line of ‘strong government’ (the irony given the last few years of Tory rule did not seem to worry him). I wonder how Tory MPs are feeling now? Farage has out manoeuvred them in many ways. The Tories are in danger of being a squeezed party of the centre. Their only other option is being forced too far right for many of the traditional one world conservatives to be prepared to tolerate.
Starmers response to the ECHR question was another open goal missed .
He should have made it clear that the only European countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus and do people want the UK sharing that company.
He needs to do better in the final leaders debate .
Its a bloody stupid point.
Russia was in the ECHR as recently as the start of the invasion of Ukraine, despite decades of being a one party dictatorship.
Meanwhile healthy democracies around the planet such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc are not part of the ECHR.
ECHR is not a priority for me, but if it ever came up you need a better argument than "company" as I'm quite content to be in the same company as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
The fact those nations are not in Europe, or that we are, is utterly, utterly irrelevant. Human rights are universal, not continental.
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
The lie is that taxes aren't going to increase.
And all the parties are making it.
So why is it none of the parties can be honest about tax rises? The answer, simply, is the media won't allow that honesty. We've had 40-50 years of dishonesty on tax - the continuous worship of Laffer and the notion aspiration is killed off by increased taxes.
The other aside is who gets to pay more tax - the wealthy, who can always find or buy people to speak for them, claim they pay too much and can't pay any more - that is nonsense. There's the implied threat (and we've heard it from a few on here) that the wealth will move abroad to a more sympathetic Government.
It is that fear of a wealth exodus which in turn maintains and support the dishonesty.
The third aspect is no one believes the Government would effectively spend or use the additional tax revenue - would our schools, libraries, hospitals be better if there was more money?
Then there's the immigration conundrum - let's have fewer prople coming in, fewer people working, fewer people paying tax and see where that gets us.
The dishonesty isn't just with the parties, it's with many of the voters as well.
Is it not simply 3 - people see higher and rising taxes, the same or worse services, and think, what's the point. At some macro level, the taxes are paying for extended periods of life and retirement compared to 30 years ago, so we fund the stuff with less work. And that in turn creates the conditions where labour migration becomes a very attractive fix.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
OT - with respect to the US Democratic Party, think the description given is what you might call the civics text version. The actual, practical version is somewhat different,
For one thing, state parties, their officials & apparatchiks have MUCH less to do with setting Democratic Party policies, than do Democratic candidates, particularly those who get elected to local office, legislatures, governors, US Representatives, US Senators and . . . wait for it . . . Presidents.
Along these lines, national Democratic political positions have become increasingly nationalized (as opposed to federalized) over the past century. With differences in emphasis more than substance from state-to-state. With Democratic "organizations" in the space between the voters and the electeds, have FAR less influence than either.
Note that I speak from the authority of a Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, officially elected in the 2024 WA Primary, whereas district, state and national committee officers are NOT elected in an actual election, but rather in party conclaves.
FYI (and BTW) the Republican Party is pretty much the same, but less so. More subject to regional differences, but it's GOP voters and electeds who set the agenda.
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
You're doing it wrong: you need to say £2,000 every time you write a post like this.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
This is absolutely correct.
That said... I think it's too late to prevent a Labour majority. It might save a dozen seats, however.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
You're doing it wrong: you need to say £2,000 every time you write a post like this.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
This is absolutely correct.
That said... I think it's too late to prevent a Labour majority. It might save a dozen seats, however.
Yeah, agree. Barring a major unexpected event I think most people have already made up their mind. Let’s get rid of this lot.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Why would we trust a leader who thinks they can't be trusted to fix the NHS if they use somewhere else, even if just to save someone's life?
Why would that extreme scenario undermine our confidence in someone's committment to ensuring high quality healthcare for all?
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
You're doing it wrong: you need to say £2,000 every time you write a post like this.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
This is absolutely correct.
That said... I think it's too late to prevent a Labour majority. It might save a dozen seats, however.
Given that might be 10% or more of the remaining seats they hold, it's worth doing.
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
You're doing it wrong: you need to say £2,000 every time you write a post like this.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
You can’t expect Labour to just sit there and not attack the Tories over this . And what goes around comes around . Sunak isn’t trusted and was soundly beaten by Starmer on the honesty question . It could well backfire for the Tories .We’ll have to see what the latest polls show .
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Ok, here's a fun game. What's the smallest majority* the Tories will successfully defend? David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Why would we trust a leader who thinks they can't be trusted to fix the NHS if they use somewhere else, even if just to save someone's life?
Why would that extreme scenario undermine our confidence in someone's committment to ensuring high quality healthcare for all?
People go private to jump the queue, or to get a private room and better food, not to get life saving treatment.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Why would we trust a leader who thinks they can't be trusted to fix the NHS if they use somewhere else, even if just to save someone's life?
Why would that extreme scenario undermine our confidence in someone's committment to ensuring high quality healthcare for all?
People go private to jump the queue, or to get a private room and better food, not to get life saving treatment.
Sometimes the treatment is worse. Sometimes in life quicker does not equal better.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Of course its easy to claim to live by those principles when they're not being put to the test.
When they are, then its not unusual to see those principles suddenly go out the window.
See eg Diane Abbott (education) and a long list of others.
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Ok, here's a fun game. What's the smallest majority* the Tories will successfully defend. David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
It will probably be someone in Scotland, so not a bad bet.
They range from 413-5148 (granted with changes as you note), so were they anywhere else they might all be lost!
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Well, you call it principles, I call it ideology. What if it's his children he's letting suffer by waiting?
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Why would we trust a leader who thinks they can't be trusted to fix the NHS if they use somewhere else, even if just to save someone's life?
Why would that extreme scenario undermine our confidence in someone's committment to ensuring high quality healthcare for all?
People go private to jump the queue, or to get a private room and better food, not to get life saving treatment.
Queue is a function of rationing; markets use the price mechanism to match supply and demand so there is no queue.
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Ok, here's a fun game. What's the smallest majority* the Tories will successfully defend? David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
I'll pick 4 options West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine or Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland (either side of a notional 1000) In England - IDS defying gravity thanks to Shaheen (1300 odd) or, given Labour's horrendous Birmingham woes, Northfield at about 1500
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
It's a principle a lot of people share. Queue-jumping gets some people really angry in many contexts.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
I don’t think Starmers mum was thinking like that . You need to read Tom Baldwin’s biography of Starmer to understand.
It’s quite sad at times especially the relationship he had with his dad .
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
I had a friend at uni who refused to visit me in hospital because it was a private hospital. This pi**ed me off - especially as a large part of the reason for the operations was NHS incompetence.
Roll on a few decades, and she is now a teacher ... at a private school.
(I could always be that she just didn't want to see me...)
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
There are a handful of people like that in the 6% (Jeremy Corbyn, for example, is one of them) and since they named their son after Hardie it's perfectly possible they're in that same set.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Well, you call it principles, I call it ideology. What if it's his children he's letting suffer by waiting?
Do you think there are a lot of children suffering in this way? Isn't that a terrible indictment of Tory stewardship of the NHS?
I don't expect it but if there is a Tory gain in England my pick is Cramlington and Killingworth. This election will disguise it but there is a long-term trend towards Conservatives in the towns of Northern England, boundary changes have made a Tory gain in GE19 (Blyth Valley) into a notional Labour seat but only by less than 2% and that was despite a sizeable Brexit party vote (7.9%). The incumbent MP for much of the new constituency is standing again, the Labour candidate isn't a councillor or seems to have much of a profile. The polls would have to narrow and the Brexit/Reform vote will have to be squeezed but it doesn't seem completely impossible.
That’s my seat. Literally no sign of any campaigning or literature from anyone but Labour.
Have I missed a new PB rule where @BartholomewRoberts allowed to “reallocate” polls he personally doesn’t like?
Can we all do this? I’d like to “reallocate” the last Opinium so the SNP are on minus 5. Thanks
Have I missed a new PB rule that we can't make our own predictions?
It's a betting site, to bet you need to be making predictions.
I gave my prediction to my own username and never implied it was anyone else's work, it's just my best guess with the date and evidence and logic I have. For reasons others have subsequently acknowledged are reasonable. If you don't, that's entirely fair, but I'm explaining my thinking.
Leon was being Leon.
I see no problem with you taking the figures and showing how you were changing them to reflect the fact Reform / Green figures are implausibly high - it's what I've done for a while albeit I operate on the basis that most reform voters won't actually go out and vote...
No, you’re both proving OGH’s golden rule: a rogue poll is a poll whose numbers you do not like
I never said its a rogue poll.
I just think its wrong and and have explained why.
Since the Brexit Referendum the Reform Party's predecessors have been wildly overestimated by the polls.
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2019 the Brexit Party was polling 9%, they ended on 2.0% In the same gap between polling day and now in 2017 UKIP was polling 12%, they ended on 1.9%
Its eminently reasonable to make predictions on how things might change between a poll and the actual results.
True, but in both cases many of those tempted to vote UKIP/BXP ended up voting Tory to keep Corbyn out. Starmer doesn't elicit the same fear and in any case he's going to win anyway.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Well, you call it principles, I call it ideology. What if it's his children he's letting suffer by waiting?
Do you think there are a lot of children suffering in this way? Isn't that a terrible indictment of Tory stewardship of the NHS?
Yup. Doesn't make Starmer any less a freak. Public policy is not just private conduct writ large.
Correction - I said I was elected as DPCO in recent WA State Primary.
Actually, I was deemed elected as Democratic PCO because I was only one who filed for this position last month during filing period for upcoming August primary. IF someone else had also done so, then our names would be on the ballot, as per state law.
Used to be that all PCO candidates for both parties all appeared on even-year primary ballots. Yours truly was one of the people who had a hand in the decision to limited this to contested PCO races.
Why? To save election administrators (and taxpayers) a boatload of money in ballot printing costs. Especially in King County which has 1k voting precincts more or less. Because PCOs are by definition limited to individual precincts, thus requiring separate ballot styles. By eliminating uncontested PCO races, you substantially reduce the number of print runs.
Note that the PCOs are the lowest rung of Democratic Party organization, we are all members of our legislative district AND county Democratic central committees. And elect delegates to congressional district caucuses and the WA State Democratic convention. Which in turn elects WA's delegates to the National Convention.
Sounds way grander & more powerful than it is . . . at ever level.
Worth remembering at this time Cameron being raked over the coals for talking about his late son's use of the NHS. Hope it wasn't the same people batting for Starmer now.
Have I missed a new PB rule where @BartholomewRoberts allowed to “reallocate” polls he personally doesn’t like?
Can we all do this? I’d like to “reallocate” the last Opinium so the SNP are on minus 5. Thanks
Have I missed a new PB rule that we can't make our own predictions?
It's a betting site, to bet you need to be making predictions.
I gave my prediction to my own username and never implied it was anyone else's work, it's just my best guess with the date and evidence and logic I have. For reasons others have subsequently acknowledged are reasonable. If you don't, that's entirely fair, but I'm explaining my thinking.
Leon was being Leon.
I see no problem with you taking the figures and showing how you were changing them to reflect the fact Reform / Green figures are implausibly high - it's what I've done for a while albeit I operate on the basis that most reform voters won't actually go out and vote...
No, you’re both proving OGH’s golden rule: a rogue poll is a poll whose numbers you do not like
I never said its a rogue poll.
I just think its wrong and and have explained why.
Since the Brexit Referendum the Reform Party's predecessors have been wildly overestimated by the polls.
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2019 the Brexit Party was polling 9%, they ended on 2.0% In the same gap between polling day and now in 2017 UKIP was polling 12%, they ended on 1.9%
Its eminently reasonable to make predictions on how things might change between a poll and the actual results.
True, but in both cases many of those tempted to vote UKIP/BXP ended up voting Tory to keep Corbyn out. Starmer doesn't elicit the same fear and in any case he's going to win anyway.
UKIP scored less than it was polling at this stage in 2010 and 2015 too, Corbyn wasn't a factor then.
We can all make our own judgements, but I'm sticking with my judgement that the polls are overestimating the Fukkers.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
Have I missed a new PB rule where @BartholomewRoberts allowed to “reallocate” polls he personally doesn’t like?
Can we all do this? I’d like to “reallocate” the last Opinium so the SNP are on minus 5. Thanks
Have I missed a new PB rule that we can't make our own predictions?
It's a betting site, to bet you need to be making predictions.
I gave my prediction to my own username and never implied it was anyone else's work, it's just my best guess with the date and evidence and logic I have. For reasons others have subsequently acknowledged are reasonable. If you don't, that's entirely fair, but I'm explaining my thinking.
Leon was being Leon.
I see no problem with you taking the figures and showing how you were changing them to reflect the fact Reform / Green figures are implausibly high - it's what I've done for a while albeit I operate on the basis that most reform voters won't actually go out and vote...
No, you’re both proving OGH’s golden rule: a rogue poll is a poll whose numbers you do not like
I never said its a rogue poll.
I just think its wrong and and have explained why.
Since the Brexit Referendum the Reform Party's predecessors have been wildly overestimated by the polls.
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2019 the Brexit Party was polling 9%, they ended on 2.0% In the same gap between polling day and now in 2017 UKIP was polling 12%, they ended on 1.9%
Its eminently reasonable to make predictions on how things might change between a poll and the actual results.
True, but in both cases many of those tempted to vote UKIP/BXP ended up voting Tory to keep Corbyn out. Starmer doesn't elicit the same fear and in any case he's going to win anyway.
UKIP scored less than it was polling at this stage in 2010 and 2015 too, Corbyn wasn't a factor then.
We can all make our own judgements, but I'm sticking with my judgement that the polls are overestimating the Fukkers.
+1 - it then depends on what you think whether those votes are actually going to vote in the election. I don't think they will so I'm simply increasing the shares of the other parties by 10%.
"Alright, Princess ? I've got a brand new deal from on these second-hand lamps for the Queen Vic. I'll make everything right again for us, Ange, I promise you".
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Of course its easy to claim to live by those principles when they're not being put to the test.
When they are, then its not unusual to see those principles suddenly go out the window.
See eg Diane Abbott (education) and a long list of others.
Quite possibly, who knows how they will behave if tested. But if you don't think it's likely you will ever use private healthcare it makes no sense to have private health insurance, even if offered by an employer (as it is a taxable benefit). The lack of comprehension between people who believe in fairness and those who don't is quite startling. I think it's one of the fundamental dividing lines in people's ideological makeup. You either get it or you don't. I find it bizarre that people don't think like this, to be honest, but I am well aware that for many people it really is all about #1 and immediate family.
Car crash on Sky for the Tory Tax Lie. It does seem that it’s unravelled. But, the D-Day coverage has seemingly swamped the whole row anyway.
“It does seem that it’s unravelled.”
It’s noticeable everyone on PB pushing the clear blue water of Labours 2K tax rise this morning, have now shifted to “all parties will raise taxes, curse on all the houses.” 🤷♀️
Looking at some of the images of billboard and newspaper advertising prepared and all ready to go - with “the big lie” on it, 2016 style, it’s clear the Tory campaign decided weeks ago this was set to be the centre piece of their campaign thrust, they have spent on a lot of money and effort on all these things to promote it - and it’s fallen apart in less than 24hrs of media scrutiny.
It’s a lie it was treasury work, not Tory SPAD work - and Sunak claiming this really infuriated the Treasury It’s also based on a tax calculation only on working families, not how tax system actually works Sunak said it’s every year, for a cost spread over 4 years They listed out statements made by Labour politicians, that could or may not be policy, and put exaggerated sums against each one, that was never going to fool any of the media or any voters, nor has it ,for being so being obviously made up and without any substance or credibility.
If you are going to lie, at least be sly. This is so transparent you can see Marlyn Monroes tits through it.
It’s amateur student days stuff. Even that might be an insult to amateurs and students who construct things more sly or substantial than this concoction.
Who should actually get most angry here? everyone who actually wants to the see the Conservatives win votes and seats, as a campaign as awful and amateurish as this one is day after day, considering the colossal sums being spent on it, is an historic low for what used to be one of the worlds strongest and most effective political party machines. 😫
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Ok, here's a fun game. What's the smallest majority* the Tories will successfully defend. David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
I think the game in Scotland is so fundamentally different you have to discount SCon seats though fwiw I’d say Alister Jack in D&G.
Outside Scotland I have no idea - you’re probably looking at the 10k bar.
From the Labour Party's own website, literally Keir Starmer's very first words at his election launch were "Thank you Ange ..."
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
From the Labour Party's own website, literally Keir Starmer's very first words at his election launch were "Thank you Ange ..."
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
If a tory leader's mother had named him Winston, mockery would abound. but Keir is unremarked upon.
Most people have no idea who Keir Hardy is.
Fun* fact - my parents also named me after a once-famous trade union activist.
*OK, not actually fun.
Jimmy Hoffa is a perfectly good name so don’t be embarrassed.
You know what - I’m at a loose end in a Travelodge this evening, and that’s inspired me to download the audiobook of American Tabloid.
Just a great book. Ellroy is a very special writer.
I feel strongly that Ellroy is one of the greatest writers of the last hundred years.
He suffers from being seen as a genre novelist, but there is nobody really like him - or certainly, he has his imitators (maybe David Peace has come closest) but no equals. And he’s still turning them out!
Can we get some more chat going about actual bets? There are still massive opportunities for trading Reform and the LDs if you believe that crossover is coming (even if it only lasts a few days) and would love some tips from more experienced heads.
This is a seismic all time moment - or at least, for a week it will be!
Under FPTP the only result of Reform overtaking the Tories is likely 10-20 years of continued Labour majority government under FPTP shifting us ever more Woke in direction.
Unless Reform not only replace but merge with the Tories that is the end result of FPTP of a divided right. It is only viable to have separate Reform and Tory Parties both getting 15-25% of the vote with PR
I have never been a fan of FPTP because I believe it drives negative campaigning and encourages people to vote against things. I had an exchange with my (Tory) MP about it a few years back who followed the Tory line of ‘strong government’ (the irony given the last few years of Tory rule did not seem to worry him). I wonder how Tory MPs are feeling now? Farage has out manoeuvred them in many ways. The Tories are in danger of being a squeezed party of the centre. Their only other option is being forced too far right for many of the traditional one world conservatives to be prepared to tolerate.
The chance of 10-20 years of labour majority government is very low. The labour party will have exactly the same problems that the Conservative party had, but they have no real idea how to deal with them. They may be free of some problematic elements, like MP's protesting against any housebuilding and a reliance on the triple lock client vote, but then they have others, like the protesting public sector workers demanding vast amounts of money, and a rump of Corbynite MPs. It is all the same thing. They will be unable to hold back on the desire to try and legislate to try and fix every problem, thus creating more process, that in turn makes public administration more impossible than it already is. They will have a load of crippling and intractible problems inherited from the failure of the current government. I think the most likely situation is a short honeymoon of 'strong and stable' followed by dissolution in to the a similar chaos to what we have just been seeing. It could well be that the current election finishes off the Conservative Party and the next election finishes off the Labour Party.
What I think will happen is that there will be a 'challenger' party/movement, I am not sure where it will come from, but if you look at current trends, it is the 'right' that are in the ascendancy globally. This isn't wishful thinking on my part as some people claim. I am probably going to vote labour. It is just what I think will happen.
From the Labour Party's own website, literally Keir Starmer's very first words at his election launch were "Thank you Ange ..."
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Of course its easy to claim to live by those principles when they're not being put to the test.
When they are, then its not unusual to see those principles suddenly go out the window.
See eg Diane Abbott (education) and a long list of others.
Quite possibly, who knows how they will behave if tested. But if you don't think it's likely you will ever use private healthcare it makes no sense to have private health insurance, even if offered by an employer (as it is a taxable benefit). The lack of comprehension between people who believe in fairness and those who don't is quite startling. I think it's one of the fundamental dividing lines in people's ideological makeup. You either get it or you don't. I find it bizarre that people don't think like this, to be honest, but I am well aware that for many people it really is all about #1 and immediate family.
The belief in fairness is always circumscribed.
Would anyone refuse NHS treatment because it's unfair that the doctor isn't treating someone in the developing world who might need it more than them? No, but they will happily import the doctor to treat them while banging on about their principles.
❗️Russians have launched a missile attack on a resort village in the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyy district of #Odesa Region, tourist infrastructure has been damaged, the prosecutor's office reported.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
No, it's called living according to your principles. People do this all the time. I tend to find it admirable even when I don't share the principles in question. We could do with more of it IMHO.
Of course its easy to claim to live by those principles when they're not being put to the test.
When they are, then its not unusual to see those principles suddenly go out the window.
See eg Diane Abbott (education) and a long list of others.
Quite possibly, who knows how they will behave if tested. But if you don't think it's likely you will ever use private healthcare it makes no sense to have private health insurance, even if offered by an employer (as it is a taxable benefit). The lack of comprehension between people who believe in fairness and those who don't is quite startling. I think it's one of the fundamental dividing lines in people's ideological makeup. You either get it or you don't. I find it bizarre that people don't think like this, to be honest, but I am well aware that for many people it really is all about #1 and immediate family.
The thing is, for all the people who point out that when it's YOU of course you want to jump the queue, there is a truth in that. Definitely. Beyond doubt.
But on the flip side, if you're sick and you're waiting for treatment, and you see someone else jump the queue... boy, does that sting. It's an implicit statement that your life is worth less than the other person's. Can people on the other side of this argument understand the humiliation and fury that will induce?
By the time of the 26th June BBC 2-way leaders’ debate, REFUK could be ahead of the Tories in the Polls, and the Lib Dem’s could be projected to be the Opposition.
Might feel pretty redundant by then to have Sunak vs Starmer…
Under FPTP the only result of Reform overtaking the Tories is likely 10-20 years of continued Labour majority government under FPTP shifting us ever more Woke in direction.
Unless Reform not only replace but merge with the Tories that is the end result of FPTP of a divided right. It is only viable to have separate Reform and Tory Parties both getting 15-25% of the vote with PR
I have never been a fan of FPTP because I believe it drives negative campaigning and encourages people to vote against things. I had an exchange with my (Tory) MP about it a few years back who followed the Tory line of ‘strong government’ (the irony given the last few years of Tory rule did not seem to worry him). I wonder how Tory MPs are feeling now? Farage has out manoeuvred them in many ways. The Tories are in danger of being a squeezed party of the centre. Their only other option is being forced too far right for many of the traditional one world conservatives to be prepared to tolerate.
The chance of 10-20 years of labour majority government is very low. The labour party will have exactly the same problems that the Conservative party had, but they have no real idea how to deal with them. They may be free of some problematic elements, like MP's protesting against any housebuilding and a reliance on the triple lock client vote, but then they have others, like the protesting public sector workers demanding vast amounts of money, and a rump of Corbynite MPs. It is all the same thing. They will be unable to hold back on the desire to try and legislate to try and fix every problem, thus creating more process, that in turn makes public administration more impossible than it already is. They will have a load of crippling and intractible problems inherited from the failure of the current government. I think the most likely situation is a short honeymoon of 'strong and stable' followed by dissolution in to the a similar chaos to what we have just been seeing. It could well be that the current election finishes off the Conservative Party and the next election finishes off the Labour Party.
What I think will happen is that there will be a 'challenger' party/movement, I am not sure where it will come from, but if you look at current trends, it is the 'right' that are in the ascendancy globally. This isn't wishful thinking on my part as some people claim. I am probably going to vote labour. It is just what I think will happen.
I must say, DA, it's an interesting surprise to me thast you may be voting Labour. I allways assumed that you considered yourself clearly on the Right end of the political spectrum, or maybe particularly on cultural issues.
I'd particularly appreciate hearing why from your perspective, as it may give some insight into just why Labour may end up with such a large majority.
From the Labour Party's own website, literally Keir Starmer's very first words at his election launch were "Thank you Ange ..."
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
Hold on, can anywhere be considered "safe" for the Tories 😂😂
In all seriousness anyone with a majority over 20k is probably not sweating too much, unless they are so high profile a drop might be worse than usual (so people like Rishi). Not impossible, but should be fine.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Ok, here's a fun game. What's the smallest majority* the Tories will successfully defend? David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
Could be David Duguid. Notional majority is 2,399 (5.2%).
Worth remembering at this time Cameron being raked over the coals for talking about his late son's use of the NHS. Hope it wasn't the same people batting for Starmer now.
By the time of the 26th June BBC 2-way leaders’ debate, REFUK could be ahead of the Tories in the Polls, and the Lib Dem’s could be projected to be the Opposition.
Might feel pretty redundant by then to have Sunak vs Starmer…
It’ll be Sunak and Starmer or it won’t go ahead. Neither of them want to face Farage. It would go…. badly for them.
If a tory leader's mother had named him Winston, mockery would abound. but Keir is unremarked upon.
Most people have no idea who Keir Hardy is.
Fun* fact - my parents also named me after a once-famous trade union activist.
*OK, not actually fun.
Jimmy Hoffa is a perfectly good name so don’t be embarrassed.
You know what - I’m at a loose end in a Travelodge this evening, and that’s inspired me to download the audiobook of American Tabloid.
Just a great book. Ellroy is a very special writer.
I feel strongly that Ellroy is one of the greatest writers of the last hundred years.
He suffers from being seen as a genre novelist, but there is nobody really like him - or certainly, he has his imitators (maybe David Peace has come closest) but no equals. And he’s still turning them out!
The Cold Six Thousand is one of my favourite books and LA Confidential is one of my top 3 films of all time. Genius.
From the Labour Party's own website, literally Keir Starmer's very first words at his election launch were "Thank you Ange ..."
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
That is unsurprising really. You have to be extremely idealogical to say no they are dying but I believe in the absolute power of the state to provide this treatment. It is why that answer from Starmer stuck out for me, he is pitching himself as a moderate left of centre politician, but he was either lying or is more idealogical than he would like to let on.
The private school VAT is another. As a tax raising policy it makes no real sense.
Starmer on his mother: ""She just held my hand and said: 'You won't let your dad go private, will you?""
I find that absolutely bizarre. What a weird family.
I think it's admirable. Everyone in this country should get high quality healthcare. If the NHS isn't good enough the solution is to vote for a party who will fix it, not for those who can afford it to opt out. How can you trust a leader with the NHS if they don't think it's good enough for their own family? That really would be bizarre.
Do you not see it as "I'm going to make my husband's life worse to make a political point"?
Well, it's better than "I'm going to make my husband's life worse for shit and giggles "
Worth remembering at this time Cameron being raked over the coals for talking about his late son's use of the NHS. Hope it wasn't the same people batting for Starmer now.
You are actually using that analysis to defend the lie 🤷♀️
Seriously 🤷♀️
I mean, you watched that and came to the conclusion “there you are, Sunak hasn’t been caught out telling one of the biggest general election whoppers of all time.”
No you have it wrong
Sky today also called out Labour for their dodgy dossier ( words used) of Labour's claim about the conservative NI proposals with Ed Conway slide charts demonstrating the dodgy workings and then ITV ended their report by saying nobody is addressing the 40 billion the independent IFS have declared a tax shortfall
You said “ No you have it wrong” and then you talked about something completely different, not Sunak’s big lie 🙂
You know yesterday when Starmer was in a spot, and kept saying “but Truss”, and you know how desperate it sounded? That’s what you’ve just done.
So which one of these isn’t already exposed and universally understood as lying this evening?
it was treasury work, not Tory SPAD work They came to the black hole listing out statements made by Labour politicians, that could or may not be policy, and put exaggerated sums against each one, obviously made up and without substance or credibility as cost of real policy commitments? The 2K figure came from a tax calculation only on working families, not how tax system actually works Sunak said it’s every year, for a cost spread over 4 years
By the time of the 26th June BBC 2-way leaders’ debate, REFUK could be ahead of the Tories in the Polls, and the Lib Dem’s could be projected to be the Opposition.
Might feel pretty redundant by then to have Sunak vs Starmer…
It’ll be Sunak and Starmer or it won’t go ahead. Neither of them want to face Farage. It would go…. badly for them.
They could tweak the format so it’s a 4 way one or something?
But agree that I’m sure both Sunak and Starmer would rather take their chances.
Having said that, it might be counterproductive if it ended up being a Davey vs Farage debate with no Sunak/Starmer
Note that Theodore Roosevelt disliked being called "Teddy". His family and close friends called him (strangely enough) "Theodore".
However, TR refrained from ever pointing this out to the voting public. After leaving the White House he requested journos & politicos to call him "Colonel Roosevelt" which of course reminded one & all of his dash up (or was it down?) San Juan Hill.
Comments
Of course their combined coalition which forms today's Conservative Party of Canada is now 40%+ in the latest Canadian polls and heading for a majority under Leader Poilievre over PM Trudeau's Liberals, so united they can win centrist swing voters too (even if the wettest Canadian Tories went Liberal after the Canadian Tory merger with Reform's successor the Alliance in 2003), divided they can't
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkkq4kx3l0o
The other aside is who gets to pay more tax - the wealthy, who can always find or buy people to speak for them, claim they pay too much and can't pay any more - that is nonsense. There's the implied threat (and we've heard it from a few on here) that the wealth will move abroad to a more sympathetic Government.
It is that fear of a wealth exodus which in turn maintains and support the dishonesty.
The third aspect is no one believes the Government would effectively spend or use the additional tax revenue - would our schools, libraries, hospitals be better if there was more money?
Then there's the immigration conundrum - let's have fewer prople coming in, fewer people working, fewer people paying tax and see where that gets us.
The dishonesty isn't just with the parties, it's with many of the voters as well.
Politicians, I guess. Good job Ange has had a decent campaign so far.
It's the latest £350 million on a bus and every time you write it, and annoy someone, they will respond, amplify and broadcast it further.
It will drown out much else and all people will hear is "Labour will put up my taxes a lot more".
Sky today also called out Labour for their dodgy dossier ( words used) of Labour's claim about the conservative NI proposals with Ed Conway slide charts demonstrating the dodgy workings and then ITV ended their report by saying nobody is addressing the 40 billion the independent IFS have declared a tax shortfall
But yeah, it does feel like a check or a balance or ten have been blown up here.
So no change there, then, as Angus Deayton used to say.
Fun* fact - my parents also named me after a once-famous trade union activist.
*OK, not actually fun.
But there's going to be plenty of pain to go around.
A generation of living beyond the country's means needs to be followed by a generation of living within the country's means.
I just think its wrong and and have explained why.
Since the Brexit Referendum the Reform Party's predecessors have been wildly overestimated by the polls.
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2019 the Brexit Party was polling 9%, they ended on 2.0%
In the same gap between polling day and now in 2017 UKIP was polling 12%, they ended on 1.9%
Its eminently reasonable to make predictions on how things might change between a poll and the actual results.
He would be slated massively by the left, it would be repeated constantly at him, it would undermine Labour as the ‘party of the NHS’ which is electorally very significant to them. It would probably be the main story from the debate rather than the £2,000 figure.
The above would apply even if he gave a more nuanced response.
Whereas his actual answer meant it became a relative non issue.
https://www.kier.co.uk/
(And yes, I do have problems with calling Keir Starmer 'Kier Starmer' because of my familiarity with the famous entity...
Under FPTP the only result of Reform overtaking the Tories is likely 10-20 years of continued Labour majority government under FPTP shifting us ever more Woke in direction.
Unless Reform not only replace but merge with the Tories that is the end result of FPTP of a divided right. It is only viable to have separate Reform and Tory Parties both getting 15-25% of the vote with PR
I have never been a fan of FPTP because I believe it drives negative campaigning and encourages people to vote against things. I had an exchange with my (Tory) MP about it a few years back who followed the Tory line of ‘strong government’ (the irony given the last few years of Tory rule did not seem to worry him). I wonder how Tory MPs are feeling now? Farage has out manoeuvred them in many ways. The Tories are in danger of being a squeezed party of the centre. Their only other option is being forced too far right for many of the traditional one world conservatives to be prepared to tolerate.
Russia was in the ECHR as recently as the start of the invasion of Ukraine, despite decades of being a one party dictatorship.
Meanwhile healthy democracies around the planet such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc are not part of the ECHR.
ECHR is not a priority for me, but if it ever came up you need a better argument than "company" as I'm quite content to be in the same company as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
The fact those nations are not in Europe, or that we are, is utterly, utterly irrelevant. Human rights are universal, not continental.
All consuming cult worship even to the price of self destruction.
For one thing, state parties, their officials & apparatchiks have MUCH less to do with setting Democratic Party policies, than do Democratic candidates, particularly those who get elected to local office, legislatures, governors, US Representatives, US Senators and . . . wait for it . . . Presidents.
Along these lines, national Democratic political positions have become increasingly nationalized (as opposed to federalized) over the past century. With differences in emphasis more than substance from state-to-state. With Democratic "organizations" in the space between the voters and the electeds, have FAR less influence than either.
Note that I speak from the authority of a Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, officially elected in the 2024 WA Primary, whereas district, state and national committee officers are NOT elected in an actual election, but rather in party conclaves.
FYI (and BTW) the Republican Party is pretty much the same, but less so. More subject to regional differences, but it's GOP voters and electeds who set the agenda.
That said... I think it's too late to prevent a Labour majority. It might save a dozen seats, however.
Those between 15k-20k are sweating, but not panicking.
Those with 10-15k are shitting bricks.
Those under 10k are looking for other jobs.
Why would that extreme scenario undermine our confidence in someone's committment to ensuring high quality healthcare for all?
David Duguid (4118) is looking good, but I think someone can do a lot better than that.
*yes, I know, boundary changes screw this game before it even starts, but still
When they are, then its not unusual to see those principles suddenly go out the window.
See eg Diane Abbott (education) and a long list of others.
They range from 413-5148 (granted with changes as you note), so were they anywhere else they might all be lost!
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine or Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland (either side of a notional 1000)
In England - IDS defying gravity thanks to Shaheen (1300 odd) or, given Labour's horrendous Birmingham woes, Northfield at about 1500
It’s quite sad at times especially the relationship he had with his dad .
Roll on a few decades, and she is now a teacher ... at a private school.
(I could always be that she just didn't want to see me...)
Actually, I was deemed elected as Democratic PCO because I was only one who filed for this position last month during filing period for upcoming August primary. IF someone else had also done so, then our names would be on the ballot, as per state law.
Used to be that all PCO candidates for both parties all appeared on even-year primary ballots. Yours truly was one of the people who had a hand in the decision to limited this to contested PCO races.
Why? To save election administrators (and taxpayers) a boatload of money in ballot printing costs. Especially in King County which has 1k voting precincts more or less. Because PCOs are by definition limited to individual precincts, thus requiring separate ballot styles. By eliminating uncontested PCO races, you substantially reduce the number of print runs.
Note that the PCOs are the lowest rung of Democratic Party organization, we are all members of our legislative district AND county Democratic central committees. And elect delegates to congressional district caucuses and the WA State Democratic convention. Which in turn elects WA's delegates to the National Convention.
Sounds way grander & more powerful than it is . . . at ever level.
We can all make our own judgements, but I'm sticking with my judgement that the polls are overestimating the Fukkers.
She hates being called Ange apparently!
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1711088176331214973
Or maybe you're wrong?
"Alright, Princess ? I've got a brand new deal from on these second-hand lamps for the Queen Vic. I'll make everything right again for us, Ange, I promise you".
The lack of comprehension between people who believe in fairness and those who don't is quite startling. I think it's one of the fundamental dividing lines in people's ideological makeup. You either get it or you don't. I find it bizarre that people don't think like this, to be honest, but I am well aware that for many people it really is all about #1 and immediate family.
It’s noticeable everyone on PB pushing the clear blue water of Labours 2K tax rise this morning, have now shifted to “all parties will raise taxes, curse on all the houses.” 🤷♀️
Looking at some of the images of billboard and newspaper advertising prepared and all ready to go - with “the big lie” on it, 2016 style, it’s clear the Tory campaign decided weeks ago this was set to be the centre piece of their campaign thrust, they have spent on a lot of money and effort on all these things to promote it - and it’s fallen apart in less than 24hrs of media scrutiny.
It’s a lie it was treasury work, not Tory SPAD work - and Sunak claiming this really infuriated the Treasury
It’s also based on a tax calculation only on working families, not how tax system actually works
Sunak said it’s every year, for a cost spread over 4 years
They listed out statements made by Labour politicians, that could or may not be policy, and put exaggerated sums against each one, that was never going to fool any of the media or any voters, nor has it ,for being so being obviously made up and without any substance or credibility.
If you are going to lie, at least be sly. This is so transparent you can see Marlyn Monroes tits through it.
It’s amateur student days stuff. Even that might be an insult to amateurs and students who construct things more sly or substantial than this concoction.
Who should actually get most angry here? everyone who actually wants to the see the Conservatives win votes and seats, as a campaign as awful and amateurish as this one is day after day, considering the colossal sums being spent on it, is an historic low for what used to be one of the worlds strongest and most effective political party machines. 😫
Outside Scotland I have no idea - you’re probably looking at the 10k bar.
I should say it is a lengthy piece but is comprehensive
As ever these things are always nuanced
https://x.com/EdConwaySky/status/1798343959607193764?t=2neA7Co8dAVmuLyH23Y3KQ&s=19
Anyone complaining about her being called Ange is just being pathetic. If its what her Party Leader calls her, its not too offensive for anyone else to call her that either.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-at-labours-local-election-launch-2024/
He suffers from being seen as a genre novelist, but there is nobody really like him - or certainly, he has his imitators (maybe David Peace has come closest) but no equals. And he’s still turning them out!
Can we get some more chat going about actual bets? There are still massive opportunities for trading Reform and the LDs if you believe that crossover is coming (even if it only lasts a few days) and would love some tips from more experienced heads.
This is a seismic all time moment - or at least, for a week it will be!
What I think will happen is that there will be a 'challenger' party/movement, I am not sure where it will come from, but if you look at current trends, it is the 'right' that are in the ascendancy globally. This isn't wishful thinking on my part as some people claim. I am probably going to vote labour. It is just what I think will happen.
Would anyone refuse NHS treatment because it's unfair that the doctor isn't treating someone in the developing world who might need it more than them? No, but they will happily import the doctor to treat them while banging on about their principles.
❗️Russians have launched a missile attack on a resort village in the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyy district of #Odesa Region, tourist infrastructure has been damaged, the prosecutor's office reported.
https://x.com/kyivpost/status/1798408106377986064?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
But on the flip side, if you're sick and you're waiting for treatment, and you see someone else jump the queue... boy, does that sting. It's an implicit statement that your life is worth less than the other person's. Can people on the other side of this argument understand the humiliation and fury that will induce?
A very good point here.
By the time of the 26th June BBC 2-way leaders’ debate, REFUK could be ahead of the Tories in the Polls, and the Lib Dem’s could be projected to be the Opposition.
Might feel pretty redundant by then to have Sunak vs Starmer…
I'd particularly appreciate hearing why from your perspective, as it may give some insight into just why Labour may end up with such a large majority.
The public thinks the Conservatives are more likely to raise taxes than Labour, according to fresh polling shared with Sky News.
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/1954
Although West Aberdeenshire has a majority of 843 (1.6%) which they may also hold against the SNP.
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/1955
Also Dumfries & Galloway = 1,556 (3.0%)
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/2154
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2064019/david-camerons-disabled-son
https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/we-need-to-talk-about-ivan/
(Lowlights of the first page of Google results for "cameron disabled son nhs")
You know yesterday when Starmer was in a spot, and kept saying “but Truss”, and you know how desperate it sounded? That’s what you’ve just done.
So which one of these isn’t already exposed and universally understood as lying this evening?
it was treasury work, not Tory SPAD work
They came to the black hole listing out statements made by Labour politicians, that could or may not be policy, and put exaggerated sums against each one, obviously made up and without substance or credibility as cost of real policy commitments?
The 2K figure came from a tax calculation only on working families, not how tax system actually works
Sunak said it’s every year, for a cost spread over 4 years
🙂
But agree that I’m sure both Sunak and Starmer would rather take their chances.
Having said that, it might be counterproductive if it ended up being a Davey vs Farage debate with no Sunak/Starmer
However, TR refrained from ever pointing this out to the voting public. After leaving the White House he requested journos & politicos to call him "Colonel Roosevelt" which of course reminded one & all of his dash up (or was it down?) San Juan Hill.