It's ridiculous that we can't manufacture such lateral flow test kits domestically.
Of course it's neither here nor there to the UK gov't whether or not Innova's profits generated at the expense of the UK taxpayer sit in the company retained profits account or are spent on big houses and private jets. The damage is already done.
That's the headline. Some of the detail in the article is more interesting.
Note that, given the large number of such kits available relatively early in the pandemic, we didn't make very good use of them until much later on. "Track and trace" ended up being a huge waste of resources, which could have been terminated much earlier, in favour of (almost free in comparison) home testing.
Part of the problem is do you remember when people came back from summer holidays and you couldn't get a test spot within 5 minutes of your house for a couple of days, there were nearly riots. When they finally withdrew free lateral flow tests, there was unbelievable amount of screaming from every quarter.
The vast majority of the public wanted to be lockdowns, test every day, etc etc etc. The media and the public wouldn't accept some sort of sensible comprises. When Boris took the right decision on omnicron, the reaction was again he is killing grannies. The official advice and unofficial pressure groups / media was always its still too dangerous, zero covid, etc.
That was certainly the reaction on PB.
Was it? After the vaccine became available a good chunk of PB became we must learn to live with it. The wider UK population / media were still going on lockdown harder for another year plus. Chris was like the last Japanese soldier on this.
I'm not going to look back but plenty on here were of the granny killer view.
Granny was vaccinated.
The numbers quoted for the expense of Track and Trace include all the 'free' testing kits that people still have stockpiled at home (I know of people who took a box a day for months).
They should just have been distributed direct to consumer earlier - they're of most utility when everyone has access them. The testing centres became redundant.
We also suffered from some poor thinking by those in the public health domain. The lateral flow tests were not perfect and some we dead against them being used widely, when in population terms an imperfect, but useful test would have had a decent impact. Sure there would have been false positives and false negatives, but thats on the whole better than no test at all. And is isolating after a false positive that different from isolating through contact tracing (which I had to do)? And two false positives in a row are very unlikely, so test again, or test tomorrow etc.
Exactly that point was made, ad nauseam, pretty early on. Also they're a more accurate test of infectivity than was the 'gold standard' PCR test, which provides a load of false positives (from inactive virus) in that respect.
All of which is yet another very good argument to look at improving public health provision, which is the poor relation of healthcare.
Election news, had one of my local Tory councillors knocking on my door. She seemed quite sad when I said I didn't agree with her that our Conservative MP (Gareth Bacon - who he? I hear you ask) has been doing a fantastic job.
Parties on the defensive often fall back on this "he's a good local MP" stuff - as the Lib Dems did in 2015, for instance.
Whilst it's a shot you have in the locker for those you identify as wavering supporters, it's not really one to lead with. You do kind of need to own it and defend your party. Pretending not to really be a Tory (the green leaflets etc) is pretty hopeless.
From the excellent Beyond Topline on the strength of the Lib Dem Tactical Vote
“@OwenWntr: Interesting some polling data I'm looking at has Lib Dem retention from 2019 at 78% in seats where they came 1st or 2nd, and 44% where they didn't”
This *strongly* suggests the Lib Dem bump is due to tactical voting.
If this is replicated in a general election, this implies *much* stronger tactical voting than 1997.
In 1997, Lib Dems retained ~64.5% of their 1992 vote where they were 2nd, ~50% where Labour was.
I have been extremely bullish on Lib Dem seat totals because of the above - the increased prevalence of tactical voting websites COMBINED with the fact that unlike in 2019, it’s A. Starmer instead of Corbyn, and B. Brexit being ‘done’ - makes it much much easier for Lib Dem and Labour voters to vote ‘for the other one’
Partly true, and partly untrue. Johnson, Truss, and Sunak were indeed appalling, and chose a lot of appalling people. But, the problems of bad candidates, funnelling money to core voters, and loading the burden of austerity onto younger people predate them.
I have no idea why they let that repulsive man write for Conhome. He is neither a Conservative nor a conservative.
Were they to ban the repulsive from Conhome, it would be a far lonelier place than now.
David is not remotely repulsive, he's a very amiable and approachable individual, with no airs and graces, who knows his stuff.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Googling the story, it is from 2019, and looks like the issue is that he had his cock and balls out on full display in front of a restaurant with families in it.
Also he had drugs and past convictions.
Strikes me as a very poor use of a prison place. Chap obviously needs substantial psychiatric help.
8 week sentence, which means he'll be in prison for a month. He's not taking up a lot of space.
Election news, had one of my local Tory councillors knocking on my door. She seemed quite sad when I said I didn't agree with her that our Conservative MP (Gareth Bacon - who he? I hear you ask) has been doing a fantastic job.
Parties on the defensive often fall back on this "he's a good local MP" stuff - as the Lib Dems did in 2015, for instance.
Whilst it's a shot you have in the locker for those you identify as wavering supporters, it's not really one to lead with. You do kind of need to own it and defend your party. Pretending not to really be a Tory (the green leaflets etc) is pretty hopeless.
To be fair to her I only moved here a couple of weeks ago and so the previous occupant may have been on her list of supporters. How sad, never mind.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
More in Common latest 🆕Our latest @moreincommon_ voting intention poll finds it’s all steady & Labour keep a 16 pt lead over the Conservatives 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🔴 LAB 41% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 11% (+1) 🟣 REF UK 14% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(- 1) Dates 14-16/6, N=2,369
I think More in Common is the only pollster currently that has the Tories as high as 25.
I'm finding it very hard to believe the Tory vote will ever fall under 30%. There are just too many always Conservatives, who will equivocate until the last moment then find a reason to justify voting Conservative as usual. I might just stretch to 29, on the grounds that this government is miles worse than John Major's, and so deserves to do measurably poorer. But that's as far as I will go.
I also can't believe that Reform will poll 10% when it comes to actual votes.
To pair this and @Farooq’s comment above - I can totally see where you are coming from. But it would be a humongous polling miss now, if the Tories were to get 30%.
I just looked on Wikipedia - unless I’ve missed something, the last time the Tories were on 30% in ANY opinion poll from ANY pollster was 7-9 July 2023 (Savanta) - almost a year ago!
I think the difference vs past elections, is even if you think Reform will fade away, they are much more of a factor than previously.
Sure they only got 2% in 2019 but that was when they only had 275 candidates - the clear Brexit vote was for Boris’ Tories. So with that in mind (and Farage’s return) it’s easier to see Reform’s baseline a bit higher than it might initially seem.
If you think the Tories are going to get 25-30% then you could get on ‘Conservative Vote Percentage 24.00% or higher’ which is currently 4.1 on BF Exchange. I’m not on this market on either side but that looks good if you are bullish.
Either way - I can’t believe anyone can say this is a ‘boring’ election - it seems absolutely fascinating from a lot of angles!
I'm expecting there to be a gradual shift back to the Tories, and also that they will outperform the polls as they usually do when in government. So perhaps to 27% or so in the polls, which isn't so far away from the upper end of the range now.
I base my Reform estimate on how they have polled in by-elections, compared to the national polling at the time - they seem to get about 60% of what I would expect if the polls are right. Why this is so when compared to UKIP in 2015, I don't know. Even less of an organisation on the ground, perhaps?
Even so, something like 40/29 would still mean a hefty defeat in terms of seats, on the scale of 1997.
EDIT: Forgot to add - and certainly not a boring election, even if no electioneering is taking place anywhere I go.
Certainly, in the various local and Mayoral elections, Reform tended to underperform its poll ratings. If that happens this time, one would indeed, expect the Conservatives to poll 27% or so. The danger for the Tories is if a lot of their remaining supporters conclude that a Conservative vote is a wasted vote, and stampede to Reform, to keep out Labour and the Lib Dems.
I think Labour will be pretty pleased that their share in all latest polls is holding at 40% or above. Any slide or ’soft’ support is not backed up by the most recent polling.
IF they can maintain through to polling, which I’m not convinced about, then they’re in for a good night.
I’m also interested in the pb.com correlation of leadership ratings to outcome.
With voting under way this week (1 in 5 vote by post) they are in a strong position.
(1) Use lethal force (2) Renegotiate the web of international treaties to legally deport en-masse (3) Offer anyone who wants to come a ride
Reform would never do (1) - worth noting the Greeks already seem to have been doing a bit of it though, on the sly - and the Conservatives aren't organised enough to do (2) and could never do (3). So what you get is bluster.
I expect Labour want to do (3) but will instead pretend they're doing (2), and also with a lot of bluster.
The problem will fester.
Make a crime of entering the country illegally. Five years in prison/youth institution.
A valid defence is any of the following: * Travelled on scheduled plane, train or ferry. * British (or Irish Citizen) or have leave to remain at time of journey * Travelled directly from country of persecution (and did not go via a safe country) and claiming Asylum.
Prison/Youth Detention centre for the purpose built on Falkland Islands.
Nonesense on stilts.
Anyone entering the country illegally should be deemed to have automatically enlisted in His Majesties Navy.
The ancient traditions of the RN will make Englishmen of them - Rum, Buggery and the Lash
(1) Use lethal force (2) Renegotiate the web of international treaties to legally deport en-masse (3) Offer anyone who wants to come a ride
Reform would never do (1) - worth noting the Greeks already seem to have been doing a bit of it though, on the sly - and the Conservatives aren't organised enough to do (2) and could never do (3). So what you get is bluster.
I expect Labour want to do (3) but will instead pretend they're doing (2), and also with a lot of bluster.
The problem will fester.
Make a crime of entering the country illegally. Five years in prison/youth institution.
A valid defence is any of the following: * Travelled on scheduled plane, train or ferry. * British (or Irish Citizen) or have leave to remain at time of journey * Travelled directly from country of persecution (and did not go via a safe country) and claiming Asylum.
Prison/Youth Detention centre for the purpose built on Falkland Islands.
Nonesense on stilts.
Anyone entering the country illegally should be deemed to have automatically enlisted in His Majesties Navy.
The ancient traditions of the RN will make Englishmen of them - Rum, Buggery and the Lash
Err, 'sodomy' surely. At least according to Mr Churchill MP.
I’m really surprised Farage isn’t tweeting things like:
“Conservatives: if you all vote Reform - we’d be on 36%, and only a few points behind Labour - then we can deny Starmer his majority.”
Obviously we know it doesn’t work like that but it might gain them traction.
Dangerous to put that sort of thing about. What if on the eve of poll It's Con 22% Ref 14%? Conservatives would be quote tweeting him saying "guess you'd better swing in behind us after all, Nige"
It would also undermine Reform's positioning if they were basically saying "we're the real Tories".
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Yes. But some political leaders are more driven by ideology than others. By which I mean their actions are driven by a coherent (to them) intellectual framework and belief system. Bad news, usually. I much prefer politicians (and indeed people generally) with the insight and wisdom to realize they have little clue how the world works.
(1) Use lethal force (2) Renegotiate the web of international treaties to legally deport en-masse (3) Offer anyone who wants to come a ride
Reform would never do (1) - worth noting the Greeks already seem to have been doing a bit of it though, on the sly - and the Conservatives aren't organised enough to do (2) and could never do (3). So what you get is bluster.
I expect Labour want to do (3) but will instead pretend they're doing (2), and also with a lot of bluster.
The problem will fester.
Make a crime of entering the country illegally. Five years in prison/youth institution.
A valid defence is any of the following: * Travelled on scheduled plane, train or ferry. * British (or Irish Citizen) or have leave to remain at time of journey * Travelled directly from country of persecution (and did not go via a safe country) and claiming Asylum.
Prison/Youth Detention centre for the purpose built on Falkland Islands.
How will that deter people for whom a British prison is a significant step up on where ever they are currently residing? After all, you will leave HMP having been fed and boarded for five years, with fluent English, and probably some decent other skills.
Edit to add:
The Falkland Islands are not a great place to put a prison, because the population of Port Stanley is only 2,460.
I think Labour will be pretty pleased that their share in all latest polls is holding at 40% or above. Any slide or ’soft’ support is not backed up by the most recent polling.
IF they can maintain through to polling, which I’m not convinced about, then they’re in for a good night.
I’m also interested in the pb.com correlation of leadership ratings to outcome.
With voting under way this week (1 in 5 vote by post) they are in a strong position.
Yes, all the hype on here last week about how Labour 38% type polling would soon see Labour on 33% or thereabouts seems to have died down. It seems that even a fall in the polls for Labour from here on out would see them to a very healthy majority indeed - and if they stay >40% whilst the Tories are fighting REFUK and the Lib Dems then we could see some very big results indeed.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
… I forgot. The return of Frockcoats to Government. Seriously well dressed for serious work.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
… I forgot. The return of Frockcoats to Government. Seriously well dressed for serious work.
Is that Mr Redfield and Mr Wilton in the centre of the shot?
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Very Foucault.
I've changed my mind. There are no ideologies and everything is sorted by common sense the nature of which is obvious to all readers of the Daily Mail.
A Reform UK general election candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
Jack Aaron, who is standing against the incumbent Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, in Welwyn Hatfield, founded the World Socionics Society — a group promoting the theory.
However, in comments made online over the past four years he has described Hitler as “brilliant”, said President Assad, the Syrian dictator, was “gentle by nature” and that President Putin’s use of force in Ukraine was “legitimate”.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
… I forgot. The return of Frockcoats to Government. Seriously well dressed for serious work.
Is 'Properly dressed politicians' in the Reform manifesto?
(1) Use lethal force (2) Renegotiate the web of international treaties to legally deport en-masse (3) Offer anyone who wants to come a ride
Reform would never do (1) - worth noting the Greeks already seem to have been doing a bit of it though, on the sly - and the Conservatives aren't organised enough to do (2) and could never do (3). So what you get is bluster.
I expect Labour want to do (3) but will instead pretend they're doing (2), and also with a lot of bluster.
The problem will fester.
Make a crime of entering the country illegally. Five years in prison/youth institution.
A valid defence is any of the following: * Travelled on scheduled plane, train or ferry. * British (or Irish Citizen) or have leave to remain at time of journey * Travelled directly from country of persecution (and did not go via a safe country) and claiming Asylum.
Prison/Youth Detention centre for the purpose built on Falkland Islands.
How will that deter people for whom a British prison is a significant step up on where ever they are currently residing? After all, you will leave HMP having been fed and boarded for five years, with fluent English, and probably some decent other skills?
“No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned.”
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
Before the election campaign it was noticed that the poll movements were often within these blocks, and that these totals were more stable, and, also, that a lot of the difference between pollsters was in the breakdown of support within these blocks.
It therefore seemed to be a useful aide to understanding the polls, and the significance of changes, which can be considerably more complicated when considering five parties.
I’m really surprised Farage isn’t tweeting things like:
“Conservatives: if you all vote Reform - we’d be on 36%, and only a few points behind Labour - then we can deny Starmer his majority.”
Obviously we know it doesn’t work like that but it might gain them traction.
Dangerous to put that sort of thing about. What if on the eve of poll It's Con 22% Ref 14%? Conservatives would be quote tweeting him saying "guess you'd better swing in behind us after all, Nige"
It would also undermine Reform's positioning if they were basically saying "we're the real Tories".
Well perhaps “We are the only real threat to a Labour supermajority” might be something that Farage can say without sounding too pro-Tory, and putting off certain Reform voters.
Reform have actually almost pivoted to that already haven’t they? I remember in both debates Farage has said “The Tories are finished, Starmer will be PM, but this is about who LOTO is - and who can win in 2029.”
One of the downsides for Reform now though is that they don’t have any more debate appearances coming, do they? Slightly less chance for them to continue their bounce.
I mean, that was one example - but we could talk about which party supported apartheid South Africa, which party student wing had posters saying "Hang Nelson Mandela", which party ramped up the anti immigration fervour (yes Windrush started under Labour, and Blair started the language of "legitimate asylum seekers" - but mostly to appease Tories). Hug a hoodie Cameron wanted to make the party out as more modern - but even looking to Boris Johnson we can look at the kind of views common in the Tory Party - a man writing about black people with "watermelon smiles" and using terms like "picaninnies". For Johnson it was a part of his characterisation that he also didn't always use the dog whistle - and that's why some people liked him.
Assuming you are a labour supporter I give you recent Labour leader and anti-Semitic mural excusing Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum group. Racism against Jews is presumably OK, because *they* "don't understand irony", and as Diane Abbott said, (whom has not quite been expelled by Labour -dither dither) Jewish people suffer the same type of discrimination as people with red hair. Try telling that to any descendant of the holocaust or someone who lost a loved one to Hamas. But to many in the Labour Party Jews do not count. Certain types of racism are still rife in the Labour Party. Starmer has simply brushed it under the mat.
I am not a Labour supporter, nor have I ever been a Labour supporter. I am less critical of Corbyn then many, because I am on the left, but I agree he had many problems as a politician.
I disagree with this "Jews Don't Count" narrative. I spoke at length after Oct 7th about my own Jewishness and lack thereof (my Grandfather's family were Russian / Polish Jews who had to flee during a pogrom under one of the last Tsars, but I don't claim any form of Jewish identity or experience). But there is an ability for many Jewish people to "pass" as white and be assimilated into whiteness that is not afforded to black people - and that comes with a different form of racism.
I would agree with you, though, that Starmer has largely brushed the issue under the carpet; ignoring the report into his own party that highlighted that there is a feeling of hierarchy of racism within the Labour party and that it does disadvantage specifically black and Muslim members / politicians.
Racism need not be about skin colour at all. That's a very American way of looking at it. The Nazis had very little interest in skin colour.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
… I forgot. The return of Frockcoats to Government. Seriously well dressed for serious work.
See if I was PM or a member of the cabinet I would wear my morning suits all the time.
Several years ago I chaired a board meeting replete with morning suit and people still talk about it.
@Geri_E_L_Scott Excl: A Reform candidate described Adolf Hitler as “brilliant” and “able to inspire people to action” as part of a pseudoscientific theory that promotes 16 personality types.
RefUK should just brush this all off and keep going. They need to be the antidote to polished politics with plastic candidates with no personality. It has worked for Trump. The one thing I think they are doing wrong is trying to cancel the 'woke' left, they should rise above it and just say they believe in free speech, second chances, that kind of thing.
Everyone has said something stupid in their lives. All posters on here who have ever made an interesting contribution has said something a bit dodgy that could be spun out of context, particularly given how the zeitgeist has changed over the last 20 years.
Let's be honest, we'd all priced in a bit of Adolf for Reform.
It's silly though. I don't think Farage or Tice are like that, and I don't like Farage.
They just hate foreigners a bit, but they wouldn't take it as far as Hitler did?
Silly comment.
My God - you don't think Farage hates foreigners?
Either way, that's something considerably worse than "silly".
He married a foreigner.
Two, in fact. Though consecutively, not concurrently.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Yes. But some political leaders are more driven by ideology than others. By which I mean their actions are driven by a coherent (to them) intellectual framework and belief system. Bad news, usually. I much prefer politicians (and indeed people generally) with the insight and wisdom to realize they have little clue how the world works.
These too are ideologies, the details of which can be worked out from their choices. However pragmatic (a term which gives rise a range of philosophical ideas, mostly from across the pond) and agnostic (this too is an ideology) they are, it is still the case that to govern is to choose. If you chose by the flip of a coin, this too would be explicable in ideological terms.
We've moved on a long way from that. I think sometimes we forget about how long people live and how rapidly things change. My dad is 85, born just before the second world war. He was born into a country that was very very different to todays. Very few non-white people lived here in 1939. Homosexuality was illegal, and suppressed (although of course it always 'went on'). There was no NHS (which is NOT the same as saying that there was no healthcare). Kids left school at 14. Very few went to university.
In 2024 we have much more diverse population (notably so in the cities, less so in rural parts). Homosexuality is no longer illegal and widely accepted, as is same sex marriage etc. Nearly half of all kids go to University were they (hopefully) mingle with all races, genders, political thought etc. Its no wonder that older folk fail to agree with the youth - they were raised in different times.
Some like to say that science advances with every funeral (or similar). Often older academics can reject more modern theories (although I suspect its less common than the archetype). I think its a bit true for society too. Some people form views very early and never change (Corbyn, Farage seem equal and opposing examples). Others move with the times.
I struggle with transgenderism. I'm open about this. I cannot imagine what it must be like to think that you are a different gender to what you body presents. I don't think that there is anyway that a trans person can ever fully transition. But I also think they disserve compassion and respect like anyone else.
I’m a year older than your father, and can concur with much of your description. IIRC the first non-white person I ever saw ‘in the flesh’ was when I was about 12; he was selling buttons and so on door-to-door, in a fairly middle-class area. As far as the NHS is concerned I’ve got a prescription record book from my mother’s pharmacy from around 1942, and other records which indicate the amount of money from National Insurance dispensing which shows the massive increase in prescriptions from mid 1948 onward. I went to a Grammar school as a result of passing the 11+; it was a very good year for the primary school as around 12% of us went to some form of selective secondary education. I’m not sure what percentage ended up in university but I think only one or two, although several did professional courses, some of which, like mine, required full-time Further Education. One of the Scoutmasters locally did time for ‘interfering’ with one of the lads; General, whispered, opinion among the lads that it was a ‘six and two threes’ job. One of my fellow Scouts ‘approached’ me and I made sure that I had as little as possible to do with afterwards! I didn’t have anything to do with ‘people of colour’ until I went to Further Education where there were quite a few, with some of whom I was friends.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
I know we don't have a crystal ball, but 31 seats ends the Tories, doesn't it? But then there is a vacuum on the centre right and right, which must be filled. By whom ? Not Farage he's too polarising.
Reform manifesto now published. A couple of notes:
Its budget stuff is just delusional drivel. Worse, if possible, than the others and much more populist.
There are one or two noteworthy nods to the conspiracy brigade: A disparaging mention of the World Economic Forum - a key conspiracy trope..
Also a call for Public Enquiry into vaccine deaths - another trope.
Scrap Net Zero: Code for 'Climate hoax'. Another conspiracy trope.
Notable silences: Russia, China, Putin, Ukraine, Israel (all these are subject to correction. Vita brevis, manifesto longa). But not silent on Sharia law.
Notable (and surprising) long grass: Social care.
It will abolish TV licence, but not abolish BBC. Silence on how it is funded.
I doubt many of their voters care about the budget details other than the direction of travel. They are furious with the conservatives, unimpressed with Labour and want to kick them all squarely in the nuts.
Metaphorically this sums up what voting Reform in this election is about:
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
Because it tells us about the available tactical vote pools. The thinking is LLG could switch reasonably well between each other and RC can do the same. It papers over some nuance, but it's additive, not subtractive, to our understanding.
I get that Farrooq but sometimes when you add an ingredient to a dish you can wreck it.
One of the things which concerns me about it is the way it gets deployed in either a) PR arguments and / or b) as backup for those claiming support for their cause is going to teleport e.g. Cons now + Reform = a massive right wing Caucus in 2029.
It also, as you suggest, steamrolls nuance especially if we lazily apply labels Left and Right to a political landscape which is far from binary.
I don’t think people under 50, or certainly under 40, grew up with the Swingometer.
As an aside, and as an example of our changing landscape, if Labour do win I would LOVE to see the LibDems as the official Opposition. I reckon they would give Labour a hard time.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
That's pretty poor from them. She is not a threat to our security. Shameful really.
It is a hyperbolic title, but the criticism that she has a very strong influence on Starmer and that she has opposed nuclear weapons has a basis in fact.
That may be true but that does not make her a threat to national security. Hyperbolic or not
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
Too little time for a Conservative come back now. Voting set to commence on Wednesday. Insufficient number of Reform gains to allow a pact with the Tories from preventing Ed Davey from becoming LOTO!
Partly true, and partly untrue. Johnson, Truss, and Sunak were indeed appalling, and chose a lot of appalling people. But, the problems of bad candidates, funnelling money to core voters, and loading the burden of austerity onto younger people predate them.
The Tories chased the dragon to the right and are about to go extinct.
Moving further right will not fix their existential problem.
Whereas when Zammo chased the dragon he got a smack on the nose.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
Because it tells us about the available tactical vote pools. The thinking is LLG could switch reasonably well between each other and RC can do the same. It papers over some nuance, but it's additive, not subtractive, to our understanding.
I get that Farrooq but sometimes when you add an ingredient to a dish you can wreck it.
One of the things which concerns me about it is the way it gets deployed in either a) PR arguments and / or b) as backup for those claiming support for their cause is going to teleport e.g. Cons now + Reform = a massive right wing Caucus in 2029.
It also, as you suggest, steamrolls nuance especially if we lazily apply labels Left and Right to a political landscape which is far from binary.
I don’t think people under 50, or certainly under 40, grew up with the Swingometer.
As an aside, and as an example of our changing landscape, if Labour do win I would LOVE to see the LibDems as the official Opposition. I reckon they would give Labour a hard time.
It's useful for all sorts of reasons. Doesn't make it fool proof, but why wouldn't we want to look at those totals?
One notable point is that it smooths out some of the noise of sampling differences between pollsters. There is far more consistency in the LLG vs RefCon numbers than in individual Labour or Conservative shares, let alone the Reform or Green shares that bounce around all over the place.
We have had very little movement of these "blocs" in months. If we did see some, that would be interesting. Indeed the 41% to RefCon in the JLP poll earlier was one such example - then forces us to analyse further.
A reassuring LLG:RefCon score of 60 (=) to 36 (+1) after the earlier 41% RefCon in the JLP poll.
Can I ask why we are putting up with this nonsense of adding up different party shares to make spurious grand totals?
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
It is an indication of the pool of tactical votes that might be available on the left and right.
See my answer.
‘Left and Right’ is too careless these days.
There are so many examples of this but I don’t see very much about Starmer’s Labour that I would call ‘Left’. In old fashioned terms it’s about as centrist as you could get.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
Not since the re-emergence of the Tories as a political force in the 1780s under Pitt (though he himself would have considered himself a Whig) as the 2-party system started to establish itself. Prior to that, government and opposition comprised competing groups of Whigs, at least since the rise of Walpole in the 1740s.
I bet that in 1987 despite no EUro/WC tournament Bobby Robson and Gary Lineker were more polular than Thatcher, Whitelaw and Lawson, who went on to win a 102 seat majority at the start of June´.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
If the seat totals end up very close between LD and CON, could the Speaker perhaps reallocate some of the questions between LOTO and 3rd party (4 and 4 rather than current 6 and 2 for example)? The existing PMQs format only came into place in 1997 after all so it can be changed.
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Ideology is simply unavoidable. The stuff of common ground we take for granted - free NHS, a welfare state, expensive defence, pensions, free education of a certain sort to 18, free(ish) speech, no religious compulsion, minimise animal cruelty, consent is essential in sexual relations, slavery is always wrong, as is torture, same sex relationships lawful - are all profoundly ideological. This is not thought so for the same reasons that fish are unaware of water.
None exist in our form in all places at all times.
Which is why Liberalism must be defended.
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
… I forgot. The return of Frockcoats to Government. Seriously well dressed for serious work.
See if I was PM or a member of the cabinet I would wear my morning suits all the time.
Several years ago I chaired a board meeting replete with morning suit and people still talk about it.
Not surprised, eating morning suits is wrong
Top tip, morning suits look hired, even on the likes of KC. Black morning coat and striped spongebag trousers is the ticket.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Luckily for everyone (or unluckily for ELE fans), it's not going to happen. Reform will slip back just like Clegg did in 2010, Tories will be mid to high 20s or even 30+, and it'll be a comfortable majority for Labour but not a wipeout. I have £50 riding on it with Leon.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
I doubt it will happen, but not much worse than 1983 and we seem to have survived. Anyway, the Tories will not be complaining about it as it's their preferred system.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
Not since the re-emergence of the Tories as a political force in the 1780s under Pitt (though he himself would have considered himself a Whig) as the 2-party system started to establish itself. Prior to that, government and opposition comprised competing groups of Whigs, at least since the rise of Walpole in the 1740s.
It's essentially a royalist/cavalier movement dating back to the aftermath of the civil war though isn't it ("Tories"), so it's there at the founding of our democracy if not a little before. Not called the "conservative party" but the same continuing tradition.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
That was only because the Tories saw electoral advantage in widening the franchise, much as Starmer does with 16-18 year olds.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
Some people were still getting multiple votes as recently as 1945.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
As I thought. Puts it into perspective how potentially seismic this is!
When replying to posts there seems to be some kind of error saying that I'm 1 character too short to post.
On @Casino_Royale's position that the Labour lead is soft:
Labour's lead has eroded slightly - but I think there is a clear environment where even many Tory voters want to punish the party. For many people that just means not voting or voting Labour.
I know betting wise this isn't going to be very interesting, but I am interested to see if Labour gets a bigger % than 2017, and a bigger total number of votes. It's hilarious and stupid that we have a system where the current Labour party may get a Baathist majority on similar vote shares / total votes than 2017.
And the other thing is I think this is soft support for Labour's governing - not winning. I think the support to kill the Tory party is strong. The desire to see Starmerism, not so much.
I don't think the country is keen for any "ism" at this juncture. This is one reason for the coming SKS landslide.
But the thing is once he is in government there will be an ism. There is no such thing as "common sense" "non ideological" governance.
There can be (largely) non ideological governance (for better or worse) if the decision makers are not particularly ideological. Not completely but relatively, as compared to being driven by some grand, overarching, world-explaining belief system.
"Common sense" though, lol, yes that's a red flag in politics. It usually means trite and simplistic.
Sorry - I disagree. There is always an ideology. There isn't a non ideological way to view the world, let alone be in the world of politics. Even those people that argue "people just want competency from their government" have an ideology - competency at doing what, for who, in what way, etc. The things you value is about ideology, the method of delivery will be tinged by ideology, what you think is "best" will be based on ideology. There is no giant brained "non ideological" take.
Ideology (of one sort or another) is relevant to many many things but this doesn't mean all types of government and all people are equally ideological. What it does mean is that there is no such thing as a government (or a person) free of ideology (or even close to being free of it). It's a silly conceit to claim that. And (yes) sometimes the ideology that governments (or people) can never be free of masquerades as status quo or accepted norm.
I wonder if you and I are meaning the same thing by "ideology" though. Bet we aren't.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
That was only because the Tories saw electoral advantage in widening the franchise, much as Starmer does with 16-18 year olds.
You’re comparing 16-18 year old getting the vote with women getting the vote?!
I’m teasing you, but you maybe need to be slightly more judicious on how you frame that.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
I often have this discussion with people. The glass half full version of British history is that England* was, unquestionably, ahead of much of Western Europe in representative government from at least the middle of the seventeenth century. The glass half empty version is that we didn't become a democracy until 1928.
*The relative power and influence of the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland is a matter of controversy that I'm not touching with a barge pole on here. I guess I'm not a Scotch Expert after all.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
This is ridiculous. Just elect whoever Miss Universe wants in charge and be done with it.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
If the seat totals end up very close between LD and CON, could the Speaker perhaps reallocate some of the questions between LOTO and 3rd party (4 and 4 rather than current 6 and 2 for example)? The existing PMQs format only came into place in 1997 after all so it can be changed.
I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot - which let's face it, it will be - sharing wouldn't happen.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Lab 512 LD 57 Con 31 SNP 21 Ref 4 PC 4 Green 2 Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
That result leads to a really worrying situation for democracy.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
Hilarious how the Right was perfectly happy with Liberal voters being effectively disenfranchised for the last century or so, but the instant it starts working to their disadvantage it becomes "a really worrying situation for democracy".
Yes and now, all of a sudden, the voting system is an affront to democracy.
If you didn’t want to be staring heavy defeat in the face you shouldn’t have run such a bloody sh*tshow these past 5 years.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
If the seat totals end up very close between LD and CON, could the Speaker perhaps reallocate some of the questions between LOTO and 3rd party (4 and 4 rather than current 6 and 2 for example)? The existing PMQs format only came into place in 1997 after all so it can be changed.
The Leader of the Opposition is a formal role within the Westminster system. I don't think it would be shared between parties.
LAB 512 LIB DEM 57 CON 31 REFUK 4 GREEN 2 SNP 21 PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
At least the Tories would be the third party in the Commons, and a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs...
It has been said before but I think LOTO Davey vs Starmer at the despatch box would, at the very least, hopefully make for a much better Parliament than the last few.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
When was the last time the Tories were neither in government nor the official opposition?
Never. They've been a party (albeit with different names) since the beginnings of our democracy I think.
The beginnings of our democracy? You mean since 1928, when we finally stopped discriminating against women in elections?
2024 surely, when suffrage is extended to 16 year olds.
Why not just go the whole hog in 2028 and extend it to newborns. It would make as much sense.
Oh Richard, that’s not your best moment.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
Comments
Also they're a more accurate test of infectivity than was the 'gold standard' PCR test, which provides a load of false positives (from inactive virus) in that respect.
All of which is yet another very good argument to look at improving public health provision, which is the poor relation of healthcare.
Whilst it's a shot you have in the locker for those you identify as wavering supporters, it's not really one to lead with. You do kind of need to own it and defend your party. Pretending not to really be a Tory (the green leaflets etc) is pretty hopeless.
“@OwenWntr: Interesting some polling data I'm looking at has Lib Dem retention from 2019 at 78% in seats where they came 1st or 2nd, and 44% where they didn't”
This *strongly* suggests the Lib Dem bump is due to tactical voting.
If this is replicated in a general election, this implies *much* stronger tactical voting than 1997.
In 1997, Lib Dems retained ~64.5% of their 1992 vote where they were 2nd, ~50% where Labour was.
https://x.com/beyond_topline/status/1802732115496202641?s=61
I have been extremely bullish on Lib Dem seat totals because of the above - the increased prevalence of tactical voting websites COMBINED with the fact that unlike in 2019, it’s A. Starmer instead of Corbyn, and B. Brexit being ‘done’ - makes it much much easier for Lib Dem and Labour voters to vote ‘for the other one’
Tied-lowest Conservative % (worse than Truss).
Highest Reform %.
🇬🇧 Westminster VI (14/6-17/6):
Labour 43% (+1)
Reform UK 18% (+1)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (-1)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 12/6-13/6
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/
Tied-lowest Conservative % (worse than Truss).
Highest Reform %.
🇬🇧 Westminster VI (14/6-17/6):
Labour 43% (+1)
Reform UK 18% (+1)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (-1)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 12/6-13/6
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1802732944412344574
Vote Malmesbury for Social Insurance, Free Trade (but reciprocal), Reform of The Lords, and building twice as many Dreadnoughts as Imperial Germany.
“Conservatives: if you all vote Reform - we’d be on 36%, and only a few points behind Labour - then we can deny Starmer his majority.”
Obviously we know it doesn’t work like that but it might gain them traction on socials.
Yes, Mr Wilton.
I note that Mr Farage is tied with one of the great parties of state.
It is simply a margin of error effect, Mr Wilton.
I wonder whether it will be reported as such, Mr Redfield.
One wonders, Mr Wilton, although I doubt one wonders terribly long.
IF they can maintain through to polling, which I’m not convinced about, then they’re in for a good night.
I’m also interested in the pb.com correlation of leadership ratings to outcome.
With voting under way this week (1 in 5 vote by post) they are in a strong position.
Anyone entering the country illegally should be deemed to have automatically enlisted in His Majesties Navy.
The ancient traditions of the RN will make Englishmen of them - Rum, Buggery and the Lash
LAB 512
LIB DEM 57
CON 31
REFUK 4
GREEN 2
SNP 21
PC 4
And remember, tactical voting could be better than the above indicates…
Lab 512
LD 57
Con 31
SNP 21
Ref 4
PC 4
Green 2
Others 19
Edit: With no tactical voting
It’s almost as tedious as seeing FBPE after people’s social media handles.
Edit to add:
The Falkland Islands are not a great place to put a prison, because the population of Port Stanley is only 2,460.
Whatever your politics - there are benefits. For example, I think the Lib Dems could hold Labour to account more effectively, because Starmer could not simply say “Well, we inherited a bad situation from the party opposite…” to every single question and have it work as well.
A biggie.
Should we not compare this Mega poll with the last R&W Mega poll (fieldwork 7-10 June) rather than with their lower sample (1500) midweek poll?
Comparing with the last 10,000 Mega poll:
Conservative -1
Labour -2
Liberal Democrat +2
Reform +1
Greens and SNP unchanged
Not a lot of movement in truth.
Having sex with leaves, yes.
Premier Inn, no.
It therefore seemed to be a useful aide to understanding the polls, and the significance of changes, which can be considerably more complicated when considering five parties.
Reform have actually almost pivoted to that already haven’t they? I remember in both debates Farage has said “The Tories are finished, Starmer will be PM, but this is about who LOTO is - and who can win in 2029.”
One of the downsides for Reform now though is that they don’t have any more debate appearances coming, do they? Slightly less chance for them to continue their bounce.
Several years ago I chaired a board meeting replete with morning suit and people still talk about it.
Harry Kane and Gareth Southgate are more popular than any UK politician
Harry Kane: 53% like
Gareth Southgate: 52%
Keir Starmer: 39%
Angela Rayner: 30%
Nigel Farage: 29%
Rishi Sunak: 21%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1802723748727968117
I went to a Grammar school as a result of passing the 11+; it was a very good year for the primary school as around 12% of us went to some form of selective secondary education. I’m not sure what percentage ended up in university but I think only one or two, although several did professional courses, some of which, like mine, required full-time Further Education.
One of the Scoutmasters locally did time for ‘interfering’ with one of the lads; General, whispered, opinion among the lads that it was a ‘six and two threes’ job. One of my fellow Scouts ‘approached’ me and I made sure that I had as little as possible to do with afterwards!
I didn’t have anything to do with ‘people of colour’ until I went to Further Education where there were quite a few, with some of whom I was friends.
Mostly the L & V of Louis Vuitton.
Quite the turnaround.
Metaphorically this sums up what voting Reform in this election is about:
https://youtu.be/lrShn8PeTz8?feature=shared
One of the things which concerns me about it is the way it gets deployed in either a) PR arguments and / or b) as backup for those claiming support for their cause is going to teleport e.g. Cons now + Reform = a massive right wing Caucus in 2029.
It also, as you suggest, steamrolls nuance especially if we lazily apply labels Left and Right to a political landscape which is far from binary.
I don’t think people under 50, or certainly under 40, grew up with the Swingometer.
As an aside, and as an example of our changing landscape, if Labour do win I would LOVE to see the LibDems as the official Opposition. I reckon they would give Labour a hard time.
You'd have the Lib Dems as the official opposition, and just 35 seats for Con and RefUK combined, despite their winning 36% of the national vote share combined.
I was dismissive last week of Cleitophon's concern of a 'January 6th style event' and to be honest I still am. But I could easily see how a Faragist insurgency spends the next five years whipping up discontent on the basis of 'the right wing were just 7% behind Labour in this election, but have virtually no representation in our Parliamentary system.'
I know that is how FPTP works, but it's not healthy for democracy when a large number of people no longer think the system is working for them, or adequately representing their voices in Parliament. You could see how a result like this could drive a small but not insignificant number of discontents into the arms of the 'democracy has failed us' far right types.
It doesn’t fit his matrix.
One notable point is that it smooths out some of the noise of sampling differences between pollsters. There is far more consistency in the LLG vs RefCon numbers than in individual Labour or Conservative shares, let alone the Reform or Green shares that bounce around all over the place.
We have had very little movement of these "blocs" in months. If we did see some, that would be interesting. Indeed the 41% to RefCon in the JLP poll earlier was one such example - then forces us to analyse further.
‘Left and Right’ is too careless these days.
There are so many examples of this but I don’t see very much about Starmer’s Labour that I would call ‘Left’. In old fashioned terms it’s about as centrist as you could get.
I bet that in 1987 despite no EUro/WC tournament Bobby Robson and Gary Lineker were more polular than Thatcher, Whitelaw and Lawson, who went on to win a 102 seat majority at the start of June´.
Top tip, morning suits look hired, even on the likes of KC. Black morning coat and striped spongebag trousers is the ticket.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-polls-michigan-wisconsin-trailing-joe-biden-1913500?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc
I wonder if you and I are meaning the same thing by "ideology" though. Bet we aren't.
etc etc.
Brogues just pinch my feet.
Loafers are the best for me.
I’m teasing you, but you maybe need to be slightly more judicious on how you frame that.
*The relative power and influence of the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland is a matter of controversy that I'm not touching with a barge pole on here. I guess I'm not a Scotch Expert after all.
I call this, Universe-al Suffrage.
4-4-0-3.
If you didn’t want to be staring heavy defeat in the face you shouldn’t have run such a bloody sh*tshow these past 5 years.
Suggests their fall has levelled off, rather than continuing to plunge new depths. Which is something. But not the swingback many expected.
And postal votes are starting to be submitted. Time is very much running out.
I know loads of people who think it’s great to open voting up to 16 yr olds and I thoroughly support it.
We need young people as engaged as possible, not disenfranchised.
Really, truly, the Conservative Party have shown little or no interest in the young.
Is the solution