He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
It is a brand new seat, so he really hasn't had a chance to work it. SW Surrey has been split in two and takes stuff from elsewhere. He has lost Farnham and Bordon, which forms another new seat and gained Ash from Surrey Heath. He only has Godalming from the original seat. He also doesn't benefit from knowing the local politics because Ash is in Guildford Borough whereas most of his old seat was in Waverley. It was surprise he picked this seat and not Farnham and Bordon.
If he was astute he might prefer only retainining his seat if the Conservative party as a whole had a reasonable result, in which case he would be better off taking on the harder seat to win.
🆕Our latest @moreincommon_@TheNewsAgents voting intention poll finds Labour have a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-2) 🔴 LAB 41% (-3) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 13% (+2) 🟢 GRN 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 3%(-) Dates 11-12/6, N=2037, change on 5-7 both on new methodology
There's definitely a trend this week. Labour down, Tories down but a bit less so, LD up, Ref up. No real trend in Green and SNP slightly recovering in Scottish polls.
Little net change in blocs generally but this one isn't so good for the left. LLG 56 (-3), RefCon 38 (=). Rounding/other +3%.
NOM remains value. NOM wins unless Labour net gains 123 or 124 seats. That's still a lot if a wheel comes off the Labour bus in the next three weeks.
There's a huge amount of skepticism out there in voterland about Labour's offer of recharging dentistry and NHS appointments from currently unfound due taxes. As somebody said to me today: "Firstly you have to hire the people to find this tax. Then you have to train them. It'll be six years before it shows any profit...."
The general tone I'm hearing is everyone is lying to them - all will have to put up taxes. Significantly. But Labour's offer is an order of magnitude adrift of reality.
He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
Yup! That area isn’t filled with Etons and Harrows, it’s filled with the £15k schools of the sort where the parents forego holidays to pay the fees. I was one of those kids three decades ago. The Hants/Berks/Surrey border towns are all like that, with aspirational parents getting 6am trains to London.
They're aspiring to an early grave with that sort of nonsense.
Spending quality time with their parents would be more in the children's interest than being sent to a posho school where they can learn Grade A arrogance.
(Not saying that's how you turned out, Mr S!)
Yeah the parents who will do anything for their kids other than spending time with them are baffling to me.
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls Lauren Shirreff"
He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
It is a brand new seat, so he really hasn't had a chance to work it. SW Surrey has been split in two and takes stuff from elsewhere. He has lost Farnham and Bordon, which forms another new seat and gained Ash from Surrey Heath. He only has Godalming from the original seat. He also doesn't benefit from knowing the local politics because Ash is in Guildford Borough whereas most of his old seat was in Waverley. It was surprise he picked this seat and not Farnham and Bordon.
Not only did he lock himself in his office, but Éric Ciotti has now shut down the Les Républicains headquarters to prevent the political bureau meeting scheduled for this afternoon
LR executives were expected to remove him from office
I think that's Ed Balls, The Sturge, and George Osborne already signed up for ITV. It's going to be unbeatable coverage –– AGAIN.
I've always been a BBC man for election night, but I think I'll be giving ITV a go this time, having enjoyed Balls' and Osborne's podcast. I feel slightly disloyal and also anxious at having to wrangle with the unholy mess that is STV player.
I’m aiming to have at least two, but probably three, channels running concurrently on a couple of MacBooks
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Two drones, each carrying an explosive (an artillery shell) can take out an Abrams. One to immobilise it by taking out the track. Another to explode the shells in the rear turret semi-autoloader.
Two drones. An Abrams. The best tank in history defeated by Xmas presents for your nephew.
And Ukraine has lost not a few Abrams.
The Abrams has had difficulties in Ukraine - partly because it is not designed for the sort of battles it is facing - even without the added issue of drones. Which is a problem of the design as much as Ukrainian tactics.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls Lauren Shirreff"
Nonsense. They haven't experienced the squalor and misery of being a little boy growing up in Southampton without so much as a BSB Squarial.
RE: Hartlepool comments - take the point compared with BXP showing in 2019, however I do wonder what the effect will be when many voters realise ‘The Tories can’t win here!’ in seats across the country. In general I do think tactical voting is going to be much much higher than we’ve seen before this time around.
What I think I’m getting at is the belief that there are going to be some weird seats where because of FPTP, parties fancied for 3rd may unexpectedly come through the middle.
So not Hartlepool itself but rather seats where the tactical vote might coalesce on one candidate despite voters doing so having opposed beliefs. Maybe more relevant for the LDs pulling off random victories in unfancied seats.
Gaullists in France, whom the Fifth Republic was constituted to keep in permanent power, are now on 8%, and are hopelessly divided whether to join the semi racist right.
Is this the future of the British Conservative Party?
I think that the British Conservative Party is more likely to adopt the mantle of nativist politics to head off the risk of being outflanked to its right.
To answer my own question, I don't expect the British Conservatives to follow the Gaullists extinction playbook. Just yet. But there will be people within the Party who will try. Adoptinh the mantle of nativist politics to head off the risk of being outflanked to its right is likely to be a failing strategy as the French Gaullists have demonstrated.
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
Yup! That area isn’t filled with Etons and Harrows, it’s filled with the £15k schools of the sort where the parents forego holidays to pay the fees. I was one of those kids three decades ago. The Hants/Berks/Surrey border towns are all like that, with aspirational parents getting 6am trains to London.
They're aspiring to an early grave with that sort of nonsense.
Spending quality time with their parents would be more in the children's interest than being sent to a posho school where they can learn Grade A arrogance.
(Not saying that's how you turned out, Mr S!)
I was a day pupil rather than a boarder, and I spent plenty enough time with my family.
But seriously; your post highlights the lack of knowledge many people - especially on the left - seem to have about public schools. I learnt a lot from my school, but I don't think arrogance was particularly one of them.
Repeat after me: most private schools are not Eton or Harrow.
The real story is the stunning decline in the quality of the BBC and perhaps to Channel 4.
To take one example, a great documentary from the BBC is now astonishingly rare. The last one I can think of was “Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland”.
The quality of political coverage is at an all time low, too.
Indeed. Chris Mason has been disappointing, in absolute terms. He has only benefitted in relative terms from following the truly dire Laura K – who was a walking press release. She was the worst political editor they have had in my lifetime by a country mile.
The BBC let its good people go. Robbie Gibb has a lot to answer for.
I don't think it let them go as many see the direction of travel. New Media has incredible opportunities. Get yourself a successful YouTube channel or Podcast and you can make your very wealthy. Apparently they are bleeding behind the camera talent to these new opportunities now too.
Sky on the other hand, let go / got rid of some of their top talent for no real good reason e.g. Tim Marshall, Jeff Randall.
Mishal Husain is leagues ahead of Laura K imo, thank god the BBC still have her
She’s fab. Bright, quick, piercing intellect when she chooses to go for the jugular but also a really lovely person.
He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
The LibDems don’t support the VAT on schools.
The 1500 is his attempt to hold back the tide. The reality I’m hearing is worse and that he’s in big trouble. LibDems are pouring in resources and when you see that happening you’d be unwise to bet against.
The Lib Dem track record of going for prominent Tories is poor. They're at risk of trading the resources that would net five lower profile gains elsewhere in return for a near-miss against a big name here.
On YouGov's 38% figure for Labour, I do find it tricky to see Labour falling below 40% on GE day, for the following reasoning.
They got 33% in 2019 and the net effect of death, first time voters (turned 18 or newly qualified to vote), and new abstainers can be estimated to boost Labour by about 2.5%.
So they are around 35.5% before net switchers, either from other parties or net gain from 2019 DNV (a good few of which will have been Labour hand sitters). They don't need that many switchers to hit 40% and, well, I think they surely have those numbers.
Spot on IMO. I think Labour’s manifesto will bring enough people back that they will likely be absolutely comfortable even in a worst case scenario.
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls Lauren Shirreff"
I get that there are some challenges for the up and coming generation, but the fact they try to make out that they are the most hard done by cohort in human history does not endear them to me. That and their belief that anyone more than 50 years old is super rich and ought to be penalised makes me seethe.
I have an inclination to be sympathetic but I wish they’d make their case cogently instead of just bitching about it.
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Two drones, each carrying an explosive (an artillery shell) can take out an Abrams. One to immobilise it by taking out the track. Another to explode the shells in the rear turret semi-autoloader.
Two drones. An Abrams. The best tank in history defeated by Xmas presents for your nephew.
And Ukraine has lost not a few Abrams.
It only had 30 to lose.
Compare with Russian T-90s (140), T-80s (900), T-72 (1,500) - all visually onfirmed by Oryx (plus 300 unidentified to type)
RE: Hartlepool comments - take the point compared with BXP showing in 2019, however I do wonder what the effect will be when many voters realise ‘The Tories can’t win here!’ in seats across the country. In general I do think tactical voting is going to be much much higher than we’ve seen before this time around.
What I think I’m getting at is the belief that there are going to be some weird seats where because of FPTP, parties fancied for 3rd may unexpectedly come through the middle.
So not Hartlepool itself but rather seats where the tactical vote might coalesce on one candidate despite voters doing so having opposed beliefs. Maybe more relevant for the LDs pulling off random victories in unfancied seats.
If you're looking for that sort of seat have a scooch at the Valleys. The Tory vote could completely collapse in Blaenau or Torfaen etc and coalesce around Reform. Probably not enough but might be interesting value there
I think that's Ed Balls, The Sturge, and George Osborne already signed up for ITV. It's going to be unbeatable coverage –– AGAIN.
I've always been a BBC man for election night, but I think I'll be giving ITV a go this time, having enjoyed Balls' and Osborne's podcast. I feel slightly disloyal and also anxious at having to wrangle with the unholy mess that is STV player.
I’m aiming to have at least two, but probably three, channels running concurrently on a couple of MacBooks
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
BBC are easily the worst of the four. C4 has Ally C and Rory The Former Tory – a decent pairing.
On YouGov's 38% figure for Labour, I do find it tricky to see Labour falling below 40% on GE day, for the following reasoning.
They got 33% in 2019 and the net effect of death, first time voters (turned 18 or newly qualified to vote), and new abstainers can be estimated to boost Labour by about 2.5%.
So they are around 35.5% before net switchers, either from other parties or net gain from 2019 DNV (a good few of which will have been Labour hand sitters). They don't need that many switchers to hit 40% and, well, I think they surely have those numbers.
You're ignoring the inexorable turn towards becoming a Conservative voter as your pension approaches....
RE: Hartlepool comments - take the point compared with BXP showing in 2019, however I do wonder what the effect will be when many voters realise ‘The Tories can’t win here!’ in seats across the country. In general I do think tactical voting is going to be much much higher than we’ve seen before this time around.
What I think I’m getting at is the belief that there are going to be some weird seats where because of FPTP, parties fancied for 3rd may unexpectedly come through the middle.
So not Hartlepool itself but rather seats where the tactical vote might coalesce on one candidate despite voters doing so having opposed beliefs. Maybe more relevant for the LDs pulling off random victories in unfancied seats.
A strange take, and I don't fully get your logic.
In the second paragraph, you're suggesting people coming through from third, which is kind of the opposite of what you'd expect from an election with a lot of tactical voting as you suggest in your first paragraph.
In your third paragraph, you seem to suggest people will coalesce around candidates with opposite beliefs. Whilst people do all sorts of odd things, people do get that RefUK and Lib Dems stand for very different things.
He knows the seat well, works it hard and his sort of brand of Conservatism is well suited to it.
Private schools tax hasn't gone down well there. And there are lots about.
Yup! That area isn’t filled with Etons and Harrows, it’s filled with the £15k schools of the sort where the parents forego holidays to pay the fees. I was one of those kids three decades ago. The Hants/Berks/Surrey border towns are all like that, with aspirational parents getting 6am trains to London.
They're aspiring to an early grave with that sort of nonsense.
Spending quality time with their parents would be more in the children's interest than being sent to a posho school where they can learn Grade A arrogance.
(Not saying that's how you turned out, Mr S!)
I was a day pupil rather than a boarder, and I spent plenty enough time with my family.
But seriously; your post highlights the lack of knowledge many people - especially on the left - seem to have about public schools. I learnt a lot from my school, but I don't think arrogance was particularly one of them.
Repeat after me: most private schools are not Eton or Harrow.
FWIW day kids at prep schools probably spend more "quality time with their parents" than they would at a state school. It's partly that the holidays are longer, but also that the extra-curricular stuff is accommodated within the school day - rather than having to cart Junior off for music lessons, swimming etc. at weekends.
@RedfieldWilton Labour leads by 23% among those who primarily get their TV news from the BBC.
Westminster VI, BBC Viewers (7-10 June):
Labour 43% Conservative 20% Reform UK 12% Liberal Democrat 9% Other 6% Don't Know 9%
It's remarkably similar to most national polls.
It's almost like the BBC is the national broadcaster, with large numbers of viewers and listeners drawn from pretty much across the entire political spectrum.
Parents are remortgaging their homes to raise money for school fees over fears a Labour government would push them to “breaking point”.
The party has pledged to end the VAT exemption for independent schools, which could add 20pc to fees as early as September.
Sir Keir Starmer has promised to spend the £1.7bn he claims the policy will raise on recruiting 6,500 new state school teachers.
However, David Boddy, chair of ASIS, a business consultancy for the education sector, said he had spoken to parents “with tears in their eyes”, many of whom had decided to take out large loans to provide a buffer against rising fees.
Is a Grant Shapps/Michael Green dream ticket the future of the Conservative Party?
I've heard they don't get on, to the extent you never see them in the same room together. Bit like Superman and Clark Kent, who I assume must have some sort of beef.
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls Lauren Shirreff"
Nonsense. They haven't experienced the squalor and misery of being a little boy growing up in Southampton without so much as a BSB Squarial.
Southampton's an interesting choice, as Sky's main satellite uplink station is at Chilworth, just to the north of the city.
@RedfieldWilton Labour leads by 23% among those who primarily get their TV news from the BBC.
Westminster VI, BBC Viewers (7-10 June):
Labour 43% Conservative 20% Reform UK 12% Liberal Democrat 9% Other 6% Don't Know 9%
It's remarkably similar to most national polls.
It's almost like the BBC is the national broadcaster, with large numbers of viewers and listeners drawn from pretty much across the entire political spectrum.
..and hopefully a new government will help it return closer to what it was.
It needs new money, and a new internal structure, I think.
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls Lauren Shirreff"
I got Rosie Wrighting mixed up with Genevieve Kitchen reading that piece. They are both young Labour blondes in Northants and for some reason I had conflated Kettering with Wellingborough.
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
Agreed. I think they will push back when there is some clear air. But at the moment the debates and Sunak's blundering are the only games in town.
Looking forward to the follow up a year on to see how they’re getting on, *definitely* working at Lidl (and also a bit presumptuous that they have a job and would want them).
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
I think this ‘Super-majority’ scare tactic by the tories is dangerous for Labour.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
I think the Tories have shot their load on this argument way to early.
Their problem is that, if they essentially admit defeat, that brings the Lib Dems, RefUK and Greens into the conversation to ask "what sort of opposition do you want?" They needed to maintain the line that only they or Labour can have the keys to Number 10 until very late - maybe pull in the "no Labour super-majority" line in the final few days, but not with weeks to go.
@RedfieldWilton Labour leads by 23% among those who primarily get their TV news from the BBC.
Westminster VI, BBC Viewers (7-10 June):
Labour 43% Conservative 20% Reform UK 12% Liberal Democrat 9% Other 6% Don't Know 9%
That looks fairly close to the national polling. Maybe the BBC is politically neutral after all.
Except the BBC audience skews heavily to the elderly, and thus should not match national polling.
Means either this poll is not a balanced sample of BBC viewers, or its very heavily biased. I suspect the former, in which case why is it advertised as one?
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
Get then to build a factory or two here. Ought to be possible.
Ah, I thought it was an actual debate tonight too.
Following the allegations of Starmer being too slow off the mark last time, I was expecting to him to absolutely charge at him over all the assorted and merry pratfalls of the last week. A bit of a missed opportunity for Labour if he can''t, but I expect he'll try and work some of that into all his answers.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
Ah, I thought it was an actual debate tonight too.
Following the allegations of Starmer being too slow off the mark last time, I was expecting to him to absolutely charge at him over all the assorted and merry pratfalls of the last week. A bit of a missed opportunity for Labour if he can''t, but I expect he'll try and work some of that into all his answers.
I'd expect the opposite.
Never interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
I've not seen a single Labour poster up in the rural parts of the seat. I grant there might be some in Didcot itself, but to be frank Didcot is best seen passing through at 125mph.
(The frequent local comment after they blew up Didcot Power Station was "great, when are they going to do the rest of the place?")
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
I think it is accurate. Three quarters of private school pupils come from the top three income deciles and most of those from the top decile. People may "aspire" to use private schools just as I may aspire to enjoy an intimate dinner date with Zendaya but the reality is that the vast majority of those that actually do use private schools are rich.
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
There's also parents like me: I'm not going to go private, but I'd quite like my youngest to go to the same good secondary school as her sister - and the exodus from the private sector makes that less likely. And no, siblings don't get preference. And no, there isn't capacity in the state sector: London schools might face falling rolls because families can't afford to live there, but GM schools are creaking at the seams.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
I think D&W is more than a long shot for the Lib Dems given council and PCC performance.
Ah, I thought it was an actual debate tonight too.
Following the allegations of Starmer being too slow off the mark last time, I was expecting to him to absolutely charge at him over all the assorted and merry pratfalls of the last week. A bit of a missed opportunity for Labour if he can''t, but I expect he'll try and work some of that into all his answers.
I'd expect the opposite.
Never interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake.
Well, up to a point ; But perhaps not as much if you're seen to be sliding in the polls, and were also adjudged by some not to have been aggressive enough last time around.
Thus, I'll be interested to see how they pitch it.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
Not that safe now post Brexit. It voted Remain, the LDs run the local councils and Election Maps UK has it 34% LD, 24% Labour and 24% Tory on current polls https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
I think it is accurate. Three quarters of private school pupils come from the top three income deciles and most of those from the top decile. People may "aspire" to use private schools just as I may aspire to enjoy an intimate dinner date with Zendaya but the reality is that the vast majority of those that actually do use private schools are rich.
And Labour are not banning them. They are just subjecting them to VAT like lots of other things.
Now, I don't personally think the VAT policy is the right priority on its own terms or politically, and the Lib Dems don't support it, but the complaining led largely by the Telegraph is just silly.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.
Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
For some people their sob stories just do not add up.
Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.
Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.
They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites. Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
"This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
There's also parents like me: I'm not going to go private, but I'd quite like my youngest to go to the same good secondary school as her sister - and the exodus from the private sector makes that less likely. And no, siblings don't get preference. And no, there isn't capacity in the state sector: London schools might face falling rolls because families can't afford to live there, but GM schools are creaking at the seams.
The one on Marsland Rd ?
I was there when the boys and girls merged in the early 90s.
So Sunak raced home from D-Day for an interview that was going to be broadcast around the same time as a debate and thus limited number of people will watch it anyway.
He has to be being advised by another person who wants a job at the Guardian.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
It really is silly behaviour. They need to sort it out.
I think that's Ed Balls, The Sturge, and George Osborne already signed up for ITV. It's going to be unbeatable coverage –– AGAIN.
I've always been a BBC man for election night, but I think I'll be giving ITV a go this time, having enjoyed Balls' and Osborne's podcast. I feel slightly disloyal and also anxious at having to wrangle with the unholy mess that is STV player.
I’m aiming to have at least two, but probably three, channels running concurrently on a couple of MacBooks
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
I think that's Ed Balls, The Sturge, and George Osborne already signed up for ITV. It's going to be unbeatable coverage –– AGAIN.
I've always been a BBC man for election night, but I think I'll be giving ITV a go this time, having enjoyed Balls' and Osborne's podcast. I feel slightly disloyal and also anxious at having to wrangle with the unholy mess that is STV player.
I’m aiming to have at least two, but probably three, channels running concurrently on a couple of MacBooks
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
The best coverage, as always, will be on PB.
FYI, I will not be coding up scripts to automatically pull all the results data into spreadsheets this year.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
Same thing in my Newton Abbot constituency. If they could sort it they would easily unseat the incumbent tory (Anne Morris)
It really is silly behaviour. They need to sort it out.
Sort what out? They're different parties with different supporters and different policies.
They should give each seat their all and may the best candidate win.
Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.
Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.
You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
There is a possibility of course that it becomes a Lib-Lab marginal. I can see why Nick and his team are keen to maximise Labour advances here even at the risk of letting the Tories through the middle. It's the border between the obvious Lib Dem target lands and obvious Labour target lands. The Donbas of the M4 corridor. Like the Soviets (Labour) and the Western Allies (Lib Dems) racing to cross Germany to establish their spheres of influence in 1944, the two non-Tory parties are in a scramble for Wessex.
Ha! An awesome metaphor. But still inexcusable in my book. There were similar scenes (in reverse) when the Libs got uppity at Labour for going hard for one of the by-election seats, which Labour duly won (can't remember which one). It led to unedifying scenes on here whereby the usually sane and pleasant Liberal @Barnesian said he'd rather see Susan Hall win the GLA than Sadiq Khan!!
Up to 38% tarrifs on BYD and MG electric cars into EU customs zone.
Everyone in favour of Net Zero, should understand what a massive Brexit benefit we have in the UK not introducing these tarrifs.
Although the UK has less of a motor manufacturing industry to protect than the EU I doubt it will want to be the sole major car market to be targeted by excess Chinese manufacture.
Expect the UK to follow suit with new tariffs.
But the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
I suppose it depends on whether cheap Chinese EVs get displaced with these tariffs by European ICEs and that depends in turn on the trend: are we on a path from ICE to EV that has hit a temporary stumble or are we going to stick with ICE and the EV fashion falls by the wayside. I don't suppose it matters from a climate perspective whether we drive Chinese or European EVs but it does matter if we stick with ICE.
Who is more likely to build a new factory in the UK ? If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan. I'd want a battery plant first, though.
If any Brexiters are serious about Brexit benefits, there's one.
(A 38% tariff isn't going to be enough to displace Chinese imports, btw, so maybe the EU is thinking along the same lines.)
This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:
Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key. Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...
...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...
* I think they mean cut.
Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.
Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.
Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
And not a few aren't. Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.
MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.
But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
..Sunak insists he has 'absolutely not' lost hope of winning general election..
..SNP says, if Tories says Labour on course for 'supermajority', it is safe for Scottish voters to back them, not Starmer..
Since when did the SNP place any credence in what the Tories say ?
Exactly what use to the military is 25 days service by recruits? Army etc cadets do more time.
Even if it is just to give some of them a taster, 12 weekends doesn't have the same value as a single block in terms of pushing them enough (and pushing the services enough to give them something to try).
And add the distances many will have to travel. When they are 18 and may not be able to afford a car or get a bus in the right direction. OK for one block of time, not so much for 12 return journeys.
Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
Comments
The general tone I'm hearing is everyone is lying to them - all will have to put up taxes. Significantly. But Labour's offer is an order of magnitude adrift of reality.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/12/labour-mps-gen-z-general-election-2024/
"‘Our generation has suffered incredible hardship’: Meet Labour’s Gen Z wannabe MPs
As a new generation prepares to make its political debut in the general election, we hear from some of Starmer’s newest party hopefuls
Lauren Shirreff"
Not only did he lock himself in his office, but Éric Ciotti has now shut down the Les Républicains headquarters to prevent the political bureau meeting scheduled for this afternoon
LR executives were expected to remove him from office
https://x.com/julienhoez/status/1800855914574131299?s=46
Sky News are usually quick. ITV could be good.
BBC often terrible these days. Slow to report and slow to respond.
It’s an EMERGENCY, right, and we need to be doing everything possible to get to NET ZERO, even if it means selling the West to China?
https://www.ft.com/content/98d3cdf0-f2bc-4038-9d6e-1e2b5c75f38a
Edit, paywall: https://archive.is/1j6Km
What I think I’m getting at is the belief that there are going to be some weird seats where because of FPTP, parties fancied for 3rd may unexpectedly come through the middle.
So not Hartlepool itself but rather seats where the tactical vote might coalesce on one candidate despite voters doing so having opposed beliefs. Maybe more relevant for the LDs pulling off random victories in unfancied seats.
Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
But seriously; your post highlights the lack of knowledge many people - especially on the left - seem to have about public schools. I learnt a lot from my school, but I don't think arrogance was particularly one of them.
Repeat after me: most private schools are not Eton or Harrow.
(Declared interest: I know her.)
I have an inclination to be sympathetic but I wish they’d make their case cogently instead of just bitching about it.
For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
Compare with Russian T-90s (140), T-80s (900), T-72 (1,500) - all visually onfirmed by Oryx (plus 300 unidentified to type)
https://x.com/RKWinvisibleman/status/1800921900912431443
Labour leads by 23% among those who primarily get their TV news from the BBC.
Westminster VI, BBC Viewers (7-10 June):
Labour 43%
Conservative 20%
Reform UK 12%
Liberal Democrat 9%
Other 6%
Don't Know 9%
But ITV will be the best.
In the second paragraph, you're suggesting people coming through from third, which is kind of the opposite of what you'd expect from an election with a lot of tactical voting as you suggest in your first paragraph.
In your third paragraph, you seem to suggest people will coalesce around candidates with opposite beliefs. Whilst people do all sorts of odd things, people do get that RefUK and Lib Dems stand for very different things.
Labour 54%
Conservative 15%
Reform UK 9%
Liberal Democrat 9%
Other 10%
Don't Know 3%
It needs new money, and a new internal structure, I think.
It’s the first decent thing the Conservatives have done the whole campaign. If people believe it they might back away from Labour and that could produce any result. Individual voters just can’t pick and choose the outcome like that.
Labour need to fight this hard.
Dates are identical.
Starmer first Sunak second
I think the Paul Brand interview promises to be fiery.
Michael Green as PM.
Corinne Stockheath as Home Secretary.
Sebastian Fox at the Foreign Office.
Grant Shapps as Chancellor.
I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.
I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
Their problem is that, if they essentially admit defeat, that brings the Lib Dems, RefUK and Greens into the conversation to ask "what sort of opposition do you want?" They needed to maintain the line that only they or Labour can have the keys to Number 10 until very late - maybe pull in the "no Labour super-majority" line in the final few days, but not with weeks to go.
Means either this poll is not a balanced sample of BBC viewers, or its very heavily biased. I suspect the former, in which case why is it advertised as one?
Ought to be possible.
Following the allegations of Starmer being too slow off the mark last time, I was expecting to him to absolutely charge at him over all the assorted and merry pratfalls of the last week. A bit of a missed opportunity for Labour if he can''t, but I expect he'll try and work some of that into all his answers.
Typical voters like me will be taking part in this poll.
Never interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake.
(The frequent local comment after they blew up Didcot Power Station was "great, when are they going to do the rest of the place?")
Thus, I'll be interested to see how they pitch it.
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
Now, I don't personally think the VAT policy is the right priority on its own terms or politically, and the Lib Dems don't support it, but the complaining led largely by the Telegraph is just silly.
Introducing Dream Machine - a next generation video model for creating high quality, realistic shots from text instructions and images using AI.
https://x.com/LumaLabsAI/status/1800921380034379951
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jun/12/general-election-rishi-sunak-sky-news-keir-starmer-tories-labour-green-party-manifesto-uk-politics
Labour claims Sunak's national service policy has 'blown up' after Shapps says military option lasts just 25 days, not full year
Teenagers joining the army under Rishi Sunak’s national service plan would only serve for 25 days, not a whole year as originally implied, Grant Shapps said this morning...
..Sunak insists he has 'absolutely not' lost hope of winning general election..
..SNP says, if Tories says Labour on course for 'supermajority', it is safe for Scottish voters to back them, not Starmer..
Since when did the SNP place any credence in what the Tories say ?
I was there when the boys and girls merged in the early 90s.
He has to be being advised by another person who wants a job at the Guardian.
Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event.
https://order-order.com/2024/06/12/sunak-launched-election-campaign-with-corbyn-campaigner/
They should give each seat their all and may the best candidate win.
If we use carrot & stick, I'd say we ought to be able to get one of the Chinese manufacturers to do a Nissan.
I'd want a battery plant first, though.
If any Brexiters are serious about Brexit benefits, there's one.
(A 38% tariff isn't going to be enough to displace Chinese imports, btw, so maybe the EU is thinking along the same lines.)
Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
And add the distances many will have to travel. When they are 18 and may not be able to afford a car or get a bus in the right direction. OK for one block of time, not so much for 12 return journeys.