If Sunak is spending his time in seats with majorities of 15,000 that implies that the private polling is as bad as the worst of the public polling right?
Are the Tories now as unpopular as Labour in 2019? Really?
Given the Tories seem to be totally unorganised and clueless, it would be dangerous to read too much into their actions. This isn't the Tories of 2015, who had a very clear plan, organised social media campaigns and high quality private polling.
I have asked before, were the Tories in 2019 actually good or was it just because of Labour they looked competent.
I think there was a plan. The "Get Brexit Done" and "Levelling Up" might have been cynical, but they came from a place of some thought and planning.
Not much evidence of any constructive thinking or planning about the practicalities of delivering what those slogans promised.
Well no. But that wasn't the what we were talking about. It a discussion of campaigning.
Levelling up money is yet another scandal waiting to be properly exposed. I think the stupid stone chessboards with no pieces to actually play games are the tip of the iceberg.
"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."
I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on
A lot of this talk about Labour seeking to stop any future government going in a right wing direction seems like scaremongering to me.
No Parliament can bind it's successor. The Tories could have thrown out most or all of the 1997-2010 reforms in the past 14 years if they'd wished but the fact is they chose not to.
But the Equality Act did exactly that, without anyone realising, until very recently
And he makes that point
As did the European Communities Act Solution to the Equality act preventing reform is same as European Communities Act & Human Rights preventing reform. Repeal or Heavily Amend it.
Tories have been torn apart because they thought Brexit was enough. It wasn't Brexit was just the enabling measure that enabled the rest to be done. They were not done and as a result reforms that the public wanted could not be enacted and they regard the Tories as having betrayed them.
Exactly right
I blame Boris. He had the majority to do all this, but he was too frit of his posh lefty friends, fam and neighbz
For this to change, it will take a firmly rightwing leader of a firmly rightwing party that doesn't give a tinker's wank about fashionable opinion
OMG Georgia!!!
Sadly, Fair comment.
I fear Boris had two fatal flaws (possibly 3).
1) Weakness - so he didn't have the balls to stick with essentially the same policy as Sweden and more unforgivably, didn't end the lockdown nonsense after six weeks when it was obvious that Covid was a disease of the very elderly, very ill with something else and very unlucky (he clearly thought it was nonsense as illustrated by his behaviour).
2) Needing to be liked (which let his posh lefty friends have a veto).
3) I suspect (pure spectulation) he got some policy ideas from domestic sources. That would account for his U turn on Eagle Slicers and the like, when the M'Learned former Mrs Boris was swapped for the current incumbent.
It is the firm bit rather than particularly right wing bit that is needed. Someone willing to do what Thatcher did when losing a judicial review. Pass an act overthrowing the judgement.
Did Boris have any lefty friends while Prime Minister? Based on the friend he married and the friends who gave him freebies and those friends who advised him on getting Paterson and/or Pincher off the hook, Boris's entire social circle is well-heeled Tory poshos.
Well-heeled Tory poshos are generally left of Corbyn. That's the problem
And twas ever thus. Wasn't it Wodehouse who observed that his dukes voted Labour and Jeeves was a Tory?
Tories to the left of Corbyn must be a pretty select group. Johnson is just a standard issue boarding school libertarian with a side order of little Englander prejudices and his social circle would I imagine be in tune with that. If he has any left wing friends he has certainly kept them well hidden. The "rich upper class lefty" trope is well loved by chippy rightists on here but I have never encountered one in the wild.
That just proves how irredeemably lower middle class you are
No, seriously, the posh are left wing. It's not a joke. The gags about Guardian journalists' backgrounds are not a spoof
Marina Hyde has been mentioned on this thread:
"Hyde is the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams, 2nd Baronet, and his wife, the former Diana Elizabeth Jane Duncan. Through her father, she is the granddaughter of aviation pioneer and Conservative politician Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams, 1st Baronet. She attended Downe House School, near Newbury in Berkshire,[1] and read English at Christ Church, Oxford.["
She's not just posh she's absurdly rich, I know this personally
I'm sure these people exist, but the point is that you can name them because there are so few of them. They probably all work for the Guardian. I've never met any of them. But I've met a never ending line of posh right wingers, because there are so many more of them (maybe you should get a job in finance). One thing you need to bear in mind is that you are extremely right wing. So people you think of as lefties (despite them eg working for the Tory party) are not lefties on any reasonable definition of the word. It's the same mindset that sees Corbynites call Labour moderate red Tories etc.
In what way am I "extreme rightwing"? Genuinely curious
Dude are you serious?
How many actual "hard" right posters do we have on here? Plenty of disgruntled conservatives, some sitting this one out, a few voting Labour to send a message, a few reluctantly voting Conservative for fear of worse (Farage, or a massive Labour majority).
But I'm struggling to think of anyone who's actually declared for Reform. Including Leon.
With Reform at ~18% in the polls, it's a sign of how detached PB demographics are from reality. Either that, or there are a lot of 'shy reformers' out there.
I'll fess up. I might vote Reform. It's either Starmer for laughs or Reform to kill the Tories
But in what universe is Reform "far right"? They aren't even "hard right" by mainland European standards. Indeed they sometimes struggle to be rightwing, so far has the Overton Window shifted
Their big thing is immigration, Are they going to shoot the boats and drown people (as has been happening off the EU shores)? No. They want to "tow boats back to France". That may be a dream, but it ain't the Shoah. As for overall immigration, they want "net zero" - in a recent interview Farage admitted that might still mean "600,000 immigrants" but they want to keep the incomings and outgoings balanced and the population stable, for a while, as our infrastructure cannot sustain explosive growth (and looking at our rivers, they have a point)
That's it. That's Britain's "Nazi party" - gently towing boats and trying not to destroy rivers. Wow. Practically Treblinka
You do know that net zero migration is completely mental, yes? We'd be better off with Truss and PM and Corbyn as Chancellor. You want runaway inflation and the collapse of half the public and private services in the country? That's what Farage is offering.
To be fair being 'completely mental' is not necessarily the same as being far right. Some of Corbyn's ideas, plenty of the Green ideas and even some of the main party ideas can be considerd 'completely mental' but they would not be considered right wing.
You are conflating two completely separate, although not always exclusive, arguments.
No argument from me. There's a problem with identifying racist authoritarians as right wing and identifying hardcore liberals as left wing. My only point here is zero NET migration is completely loopy.
So what is YOUR target for net migration, or do you have no target at all? Do you let everyone in? Let no one in? What is it? Come on, try and answer, if you come up with something coherent and articulate and sensible you might even get a column on "The National" paying £15 per 1000 words
Rejoin EU, freedom of movement.
5 words, that'll be 7.5 pence, please.
But only for nice white Europeans?
You're better than that quip. EU freedom of movement isn't conditional on race.
No but it is conditional on being a citizen of a predominantly white and wealthy bloc of countries. If people are so in favour of freedom of movement then it should not apply only to those fortunate enough to live in a small caucasian portion of the first world.
That’s entirely illogical. Why are the only options free movement within the British Isles or free movement in the whole world?
Because fredom of movement within a smaller bloc such as the EU generally precludes freedom of movement from the rest of the world. Why should we limit ourselves to just those fortunate enough to be born in the EU?
The answer to that lies in the immigration numbers before and after Brexit.
Within the EU freedom of movement is reasonably practical. The UK unilaterally declaring worldwide FOM probably isn't. Though it would be an interesting experiment.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
That's his point isn't it? "We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
But is he a working person by Starmer's definition?
Tbh the whole Ratcliffe endorsement looks unhelpful. In the modern parlance, he is saying the quiet bit out loud.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
That's his point isn't it? "We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
But is he a working person by Starmer's definition?
Tbh the whole Ratcliffe endorsement looks unhelpful. In the modern parlance, he is saying the quiet bit out loud.
Ratcliffe and Caudwell are not exactly the sort of people I would imagine Starmer is comfortable with their beliefs. They aren't exactly the John Lewis Partnership of business people.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
It is noticeable that the Sun have tried to do the YouTube thing for the GE and it is flopping massively.
It is a bit late to address the header but 115 Tory seats are predicted which is more than the conventional betting suggests. Conservative seats bands are best priced as:-
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
It is noticeable that the Sun have tried to do the YouTube thing for the GE and it is flopping massively.
Yes. Podcasts, and video'd podcasts, are the new media frenzy and everyone is trying it, after the visible success of Global (LBC, Capital, Heart, Classic FM and other radio stations) and Goalhanger (The Rest Is...; and the corporate representation of Gary Lineker) and, of course, innumerable independents. Arguably Americans like Joe Rogan led the way.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
It is noticeable that the Sun have tried to do the YouTube thing for the GE and it is flopping massively.
Yes. Podcasts, and video'd podcasts, are the new media frenzy and everyone is trying it, after the visible success of Global (LBC, Capital, Heart, Classic FM and other radio stations) and Goalhanger (The Rest Is...; and the corporate representation of Gary Lineker) and, of course, innumerable independents. Arguably Americans like Joe Rogan led the way.
I actually think it hurts to have an established media brand in that space. I don't think people realised that the likes of the NewsAgents is part of a massive corporate entity.
Its all about fake authenticity, hence why there is this weird trend for podcasts to sit there with hand mics when they are filming this thing on multiple cameras in 4k in a very expensive custom built studio e.g. they could have pro level sound if they wanted.
Policy #8 is essentially where I am at. Basically the whole Britain joining Europe thing was done arse over backwards. T'other way would work.
I have a vague recollection of reading a sci-fi story where a European Federation was formed with an elected President, and the people voted in the British Monarch pretty much on the basis it was to be a purely ceremonial position, so it just seemed like the best fit.
Google is no help, so I may have just imagined it.
@kle4 , It might be "The Wire Continuum" by Stephen Baxter/Arthur C Clarke, 1998, originally published in Playboy, later in the The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke, see https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?81708
My copy is hardback and therefore boxed, so cannot confirm, apols
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
In recent years, we have seen smoking drop off a cliff and had the 2-week cancer pathway or whatever they call it, as well as increased screening for various cancers, at least among oldies (the NHS seems obsessed with looking up my bottom). It may be this is why we are now catching up our nordic neighbours.
I wonder if any of the descendants of the tribes who artefacts these are important have been contacted. I wouldn't be surprised in we are in the territory of white guilt causes over-reaction and seeing potential for huge offence to be caused, and if you actually ask the people and they just shrug and say but that was 250+ years ago, we don't care anymore / women have different roles.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."
I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on
A lot of this talk about Labour seeking to stop any future government going in a right wing direction seems like scaremongering to me.
No Parliament can bind it's successor. The Tories could have thrown out most or all of the 1997-2010 reforms in the past 14 years if they'd wished but the fact is they chose not to.
But the Equality Act did exactly that, without anyone realising, until very recently
And he makes that point
As did the European Communities Act Solution to the Equality act preventing reform is same as European Communities Act & Human Rights preventing reform. Repeal or Heavily Amend it.
Tories have been torn apart because they thought Brexit was enough. It wasn't Brexit was just the enabling measure that enabled the rest to be done. They were not done and as a result reforms that the public wanted could not be enacted and they regard the Tories as having betrayed them.
Exactly right
I blame Boris. He had the majority to do all this, but he was too frit of his posh lefty friends, fam and neighbz
For this to change, it will take a firmly rightwing leader of a firmly rightwing party that doesn't give a tinker's wank about fashionable opinion
OMG Georgia!!!
Sadly, Fair comment.
I fear Boris had two fatal flaws (possibly 3).
1) Weakness - so he didn't have the balls to stick with essentially the same policy as Sweden and more unforgivably, didn't end the lockdown nonsense after six weeks when it was obvious that Covid was a disease of the very elderly, very ill with something else and very unlucky (he clearly thought it was nonsense as illustrated by his behaviour).
2) Needing to be liked (which let his posh lefty friends have a veto).
3) I suspect (pure spectulation) he got some policy ideas from domestic sources. That would account for his U turn on Eagle Slicers and the like, when the M'Learned former Mrs Boris was swapped for the current incumbent.
It is the firm bit rather than particularly right wing bit that is needed. Someone willing to do what Thatcher did when losing a judicial review. Pass an act overthrowing the judgement.
Did Boris have any lefty friends while Prime Minister? Based on the friend he married and the friends who gave him freebies and those friends who advised him on getting Paterson and/or Pincher off the hook, Boris's entire social circle is well-heeled Tory poshos.
Well-heeled Tory poshos are generally left of Corbyn. That's the problem
And twas ever thus. Wasn't it Wodehouse who observed that his dukes voted Labour and Jeeves was a Tory?
Tories to the left of Corbyn must be a pretty select group. Johnson is just a standard issue boarding school libertarian with a side order of little Englander prejudices and his social circle would I imagine be in tune with that. If he has any left wing friends he has certainly kept them well hidden. The "rich upper class lefty" trope is well loved by chippy rightists on here but I have never encountered one in the wild.
That just proves how irredeemably lower middle class you are
No, seriously, the posh are left wing. It's not a joke. The gags about Guardian journalists' backgrounds are not a spoof
Marina Hyde has been mentioned on this thread:
"Hyde is the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams, 2nd Baronet, and his wife, the former Diana Elizabeth Jane Duncan. Through her father, she is the granddaughter of aviation pioneer and Conservative politician Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams, 1st Baronet. She attended Downe House School, near Newbury in Berkshire,[1] and read English at Christ Church, Oxford.["
She's not just posh she's absurdly rich, I know this personally
I'm sure these people exist, but the point is that you can name them because there are so few of them. They probably all work for the Guardian. I've never met any of them. But I've met a never ending line of posh right wingers, because there are so many more of them (maybe you should get a job in finance). One thing you need to bear in mind is that you are extremely right wing. So people you think of as lefties (despite them eg working for the Tory party) are not lefties on any reasonable definition of the word. It's the same mindset that sees Corbynites call Labour moderate red Tories etc.
In what way am I "extreme rightwing"? Genuinely curious
Dude are you serious?
How many actual "hard" right posters do we have on here? Plenty of disgruntled conservatives, some sitting this one out, a few voting Labour to send a message, a few reluctantly voting Conservative for fear of worse (Farage, or a massive Labour majority).
But I'm struggling to think of anyone who's actually declared for Reform. Including Leon.
With Reform at ~18% in the polls, it's a sign of how detached PB demographics are from reality. Either that, or there are a lot of 'shy reformers' out there.
I'll fess up. I might vote Reform. It's either Starmer for laughs or Reform to kill the Tories
But in what universe is Reform "far right"? They aren't even "hard right" by mainland European standards. Indeed they sometimes struggle to be rightwing, so far has the Overton Window shifted
Their big thing is immigration, Are they going to shoot the boats and drown people (as has been happening off the EU shores)? No. They want to "tow boats back to France". That may be a dream, but it ain't the Shoah. As for overall immigration, they want "net zero" - in a recent interview Farage admitted that might still mean "600,000 immigrants" but they want to keep the incomings and outgoings balanced and the population stable, for a while, as our infrastructure cannot sustain explosive growth (and looking at our rivers, they have a point)
That's it. That's Britain's "Nazi party" - gently towing boats and trying not to destroy rivers. Wow. Practically Treblinka
You do know that net zero migration is completely mental, yes? We'd be better off with Truss and PM and Corbyn as Chancellor. You want runaway inflation and the collapse of half the public and private services in the country? That's what Farage is offering.
To be fair being 'completely mental' is not necessarily the same as being far right. Some of Corbyn's ideas, plenty of the Green ideas and even some of the main party ideas can be considerd 'completely mental' but they would not be considered right wing.
You are conflating two completely separate, although not always exclusive, arguments.
No argument from me. There's a problem with identifying racist authoritarians as right wing and identifying hardcore liberals as left wing. My only point here is zero NET migration is completely loopy.
So what is YOUR target for net migration, or do you have no target at all? Do you let everyone in? Let no one in? What is it? Come on, try and answer, if you come up with something coherent and articulate and sensible you might even get a column on "The National" paying £15 per 1000 words
Rejoin EU, freedom of movement.
5 words, that'll be 7.5 pence, please.
But only for nice white Europeans?
You're better than that quip. EU freedom of movement isn't conditional on race.
No but it is conditional on being a citizen of a predominantly white and wealthy bloc of countries. If people are so in favour of freedom of movement then it should not apply only to those fortunate enough to live in a small caucasian portion of the first world.
That’s entirely illogical. Why are the only options free movement within the British Isles or free movement in the whole world?
Because fredom of movement within a smaller bloc such as the EU generally precludes freedom of movement from the rest of the world. Why should we limit ourselves to just those fortunate enough to be born in the EU?
The answer to that lies in the immigration numbers before and after Brexit.
Within the EU freedom of movement is reasonably practical. The UK unilaterally declaring worldwide FOM probably isn't. Though it would be an interesting experiment.
Not an argument that would work with me I'm afraid as I have always been in favour of freedom of movement on a world rather than regional basis.
In practice it would need modification of how we run things as a society. So whilst anyone could come here to work - if they could find work - they would have absolutely no entitlement to any form of Government support if they were not a British national. They would either be independently wealthy, be able to earn a living or would have to leave. It would of course also be illegal for any business to pay a foreigner less than they pay a Briton for the same job.
Any form of criminality would result in immediate deportation. Same if they were homeless or without means of support. By the way this last is already the case for many European countries. If you turn up in France, even if just for a holiday, you have to prove you have sufficient funds for your stay. 35 Euros a day per person if staying with friends or family, 65 Euros a day if you have a prebooked hotel and 120 Euros a day if you have no pre-booking.
But anyone with a job/offer here or with independent means of support should be free to travel here.
Of course we should also fulfill our duties in terms of asylum quotas etc but that would be above and beyond the frredom of movement for those with income.
No one will ever accept it of course. Both sides, left and right, even those who purport to be in favour of freedom of movement, blanch at the idea of it being genuinely free from Government interference. But that doesn't mean I can't advocate for it in principle.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
Another thing that Boris got lazy over. We had a couple of months after his brush with death and then kicked it off the pitch like Peter Kay in the John Smiths advert.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
Another thing that Boris got lazy over. We had a couple of months after his brush with death and then kicked it off the pitch like Peter Kay in the John Smiths advert.
I know I bang on about it but demographics are a relatively minor threat to the NHS. It's this spiralling relationship between chronic conditions and technology that means the costs keep going up.
We have an deeply unhealthy population, and the NHS is brilliant at keeping it alive.
"In November, long before #zeroseats, even as the media was reporting politics as usual, I wrote a thread on why the Tories were heading for an epochal defeat. Now that this is received wisdom, it's time for a new thread, forecasting how Labour will govern. Be very afraid."
I pray that this dude is wrong; I fear in my vittals that he is bang on
A lot of this talk about Labour seeking to stop any future government going in a right wing direction seems like scaremongering to me.
No Parliament can bind it's successor. The Tories could have thrown out most or all of the 1997-2010 reforms in the past 14 years if they'd wished but the fact is they chose not to.
But the Equality Act did exactly that, without anyone realising, until very recently
And he makes that point
As did the European Communities Act Solution to the Equality act preventing reform is same as European Communities Act & Human Rights preventing reform. Repeal or Heavily Amend it.
Tories have been torn apart because they thought Brexit was enough. It wasn't Brexit was just the enabling measure that enabled the rest to be done. They were not done and as a result reforms that the public wanted could not be enacted and they regard the Tories as having betrayed them.
Exactly right
I blame Boris. He had the majority to do all this, but he was too frit of his posh lefty friends, fam and neighbz
For this to change, it will take a firmly rightwing leader of a firmly rightwing party that doesn't give a tinker's wank about fashionable opinion
OMG Georgia!!!
Sadly, Fair comment.
I fear Boris had two fatal flaws (possibly 3).
1) Weakness - so he didn't have the balls to stick with essentially the same policy as Sweden and more unforgivably, didn't end the lockdown nonsense after six weeks when it was obvious that Covid was a disease of the very elderly, very ill with something else and very unlucky (he clearly thought it was nonsense as illustrated by his behaviour).
2) Needing to be liked (which let his posh lefty friends have a veto).
3) I suspect (pure spectulation) he got some policy ideas from domestic sources. That would account for his U turn on Eagle Slicers and the like, when the M'Learned former Mrs Boris was swapped for the current incumbent.
It is the firm bit rather than particularly right wing bit that is needed. Someone willing to do what Thatcher did when losing a judicial review. Pass an act overthrowing the judgement.
Did Boris have any lefty friends while Prime Minister? Based on the friend he married and the friends who gave him freebies and those friends who advised him on getting Paterson and/or Pincher off the hook, Boris's entire social circle is well-heeled Tory poshos.
Well-heeled Tory poshos are generally left of Corbyn. That's the problem
And twas ever thus. Wasn't it Wodehouse who observed that his dukes voted Labour and Jeeves was a Tory?
Tories to the left of Corbyn must be a pretty select group. Johnson is just a standard issue boarding school libertarian with a side order of little Englander prejudices and his social circle would I imagine be in tune with that. If he has any left wing friends he has certainly kept them well hidden. The "rich upper class lefty" trope is well loved by chippy rightists on here but I have never encountered one in the wild.
That just proves how irredeemably lower middle class you are
No, seriously, the posh are left wing. It's not a joke. The gags about Guardian journalists' backgrounds are not a spoof
Marina Hyde has been mentioned on this thread:
"Hyde is the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams, 2nd Baronet, and his wife, the former Diana Elizabeth Jane Duncan. Through her father, she is the granddaughter of aviation pioneer and Conservative politician Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams, 1st Baronet. She attended Downe House School, near Newbury in Berkshire,[1] and read English at Christ Church, Oxford.["
She's not just posh she's absurdly rich, I know this personally
I'm sure these people exist, but the point is that you can name them because there are so few of them. They probably all work for the Guardian. I've never met any of them. But I've met a never ending line of posh right wingers, because there are so many more of them (maybe you should get a job in finance). One thing you need to bear in mind is that you are extremely right wing. So people you think of as lefties (despite them eg working for the Tory party) are not lefties on any reasonable definition of the word. It's the same mindset that sees Corbynites call Labour moderate red Tories etc.
In what way am I "extreme rightwing"? Genuinely curious
Dude are you serious?
How many actual "hard" right posters do we have on here? Plenty of disgruntled conservatives, some sitting this one out, a few voting Labour to send a message, a few reluctantly voting Conservative for fear of worse (Farage, or a massive Labour majority).
But I'm struggling to think of anyone who's actually declared for Reform. Including Leon.
With Reform at ~18% in the polls, it's a sign of how detached PB demographics are from reality. Either that, or there are a lot of 'shy reformers' out there.
I'll fess up. I might vote Reform. It's either Starmer for laughs or Reform to kill the Tories
But in what universe is Reform "far right"? They aren't even "hard right" by mainland European standards. Indeed they sometimes struggle to be rightwing, so far has the Overton Window shifted
Their big thing is immigration, Are they going to shoot the boats and drown people (as has been happening off the EU shores)? No. They want to "tow boats back to France". That may be a dream, but it ain't the Shoah. As for overall immigration, they want "net zero" - in a recent interview Farage admitted that might still mean "600,000 immigrants" but they want to keep the incomings and outgoings balanced and the population stable, for a while, as our infrastructure cannot sustain explosive growth (and looking at our rivers, they have a point)
That's it. That's Britain's "Nazi party" - gently towing boats and trying not to destroy rivers. Wow. Practically Treblinka
You do know that net zero migration is completely mental, yes? We'd be better off with Truss and PM and Corbyn as Chancellor. You want runaway inflation and the collapse of half the public and private services in the country? That's what Farage is offering.
To be fair being 'completely mental' is not necessarily the same as being far right. Some of Corbyn's ideas, plenty of the Green ideas and even some of the main party ideas can be considerd 'completely mental' but they would not be considered right wing.
You are conflating two completely separate, although not always exclusive, arguments.
No argument from me. There's a problem with identifying racist authoritarians as right wing and identifying hardcore liberals as left wing. My only point here is zero NET migration is completely loopy.
So what is YOUR target for net migration, or do you have no target at all? Do you let everyone in? Let no one in? What is it? Come on, try and answer, if you come up with something coherent and articulate and sensible you might even get a column on "The National" paying £15 per 1000 words
Rejoin EU, freedom of movement.
5 words, that'll be 7.5 pence, please.
But only for nice white Europeans?
You're better than that quip. EU freedom of movement isn't conditional on race.
No but it is conditional on being a citizen of a predominantly white and wealthy bloc of countries. If people are so in favour of freedom of movement then it should not apply only to those fortunate enough to live in a small caucasian portion of the first world.
That’s entirely illogical. Why are the only options free movement within the British Isles or free movement in the whole world?
Because fredom of movement within a smaller bloc such as the EU generally precludes freedom of movement from the rest of the world. Why should we limit ourselves to just those fortunate enough to be born in the EU?
The answer to that lies in the immigration numbers before and after Brexit.
Within the EU freedom of movement is reasonably practical. The UK unilaterally declaring worldwide FOM probably isn't. Though it would be an interesting experiment.
Oh and to answer your first point. Of course the Government had no control over the immigration numbers before Brexit. They did afterwards. They made an active choice to increase immigration. This would be something to be lauded if they hadn't at the same time lied about it and pretended they were trying to reduce it - and blamed it all on the3% of immigrants who came over in small boats.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
It might just be another example of that escalation in costs though. We'll end up with most of the population, including children, on prescription drugs.
UK fears financial turmoil at IT giant could have ‘severe’ effect on PIP and NHS
The Government has held secret talks over the financial turmoil facing a major contractor that could spark severe disruption to public services, i can reveal.
Concerns are growing about cashflow issues affecting French IT giant Atos, which has almost a billion pounds’ worth of UK government contracts.
p.s. re Tugendhat, if the tories do go to a 1997 or worse, remember what happened after that one. The young new darling of the party, William Hague, took on the leadership at the wrong time and when the inevitable happened in 2001, he went.
Hague should have backed Howard in 1997, let him take the 2001 landslide defeat, then he would likely have been the next leader not IDS. He could have cut Labour's majority in 2005, been young enough to stay leader and then beaten Brown in 2010 and become PM rather than Cameron. He did everything CV wise to become PM but tactically made a huge error politically.
I suspect Barclay is more likely the next Tory leader than Tugendhat anyway once it gets to the members
Wasn't Howard stuffed by Widdy's 'Something of the night' barb?
Yes, and with more than a smattering of anti-semitism.
Not that the anti-semitism was confined to the far right (Widdecombe). Labour had a poster of Howard as Fagin which they later pulled after a backlash. Also one as a flying pig.
This is the second constituency poll of the campaign, both for The Economist. Both the Hartlepool and the Gillingham constituency polls suggest the polls and MRPs are being significantly too generous to the Conservatives.
It has been going through my mind that they may be over-compensating for shy tories this time.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How would the MRP, based on regression analysis and demographics, know how well Hunt is campaigning?
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How would the MRP, based on regression analysis and demographics, know how well Hunt is campaigning?
I’ll take your question as genuine Ian, rather than pointlessly snide. So, the conjunction ‘And’ was adding information.
He is campaigning very hard and the MRP may know differently.
ITN has just released this 8-minute video from the 1970 campaign. The Chancellor referred to by Mr Heath is Roy Jenkins. To modern eyes, it is remarkable how much time is spent on industrial relations.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How would the MRP, based on regression analysis and demographics, know how well Hunt is campaigning?
I’ll take your question as genuine Ian, rather than pointlessly snide. So, the conjunction ‘And’ was adding information.
He is campaigning very hard and the MRP may know differently.
It’s a serious point, building on the discussion yesterday. If there are some unusual demographic shifts affecting a particular seat, the MRP forecast for it might be a useful pointer, but it cannot help at all with local factors such as the candidates and campaigning. Far too much reliance is being placed on the constituency data coming out of MRP because it is attractive and easy to use, but it is not a seat-specific poll, but a national model, and wont necessarily be accurate for any specific locality.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
I think there are several blue wall constituencies that are within 1000 votes. So, with low turnout, several 10s of seats might have only three figure majorities. That could be the difference between the Tories at 130 or 90 seats. I don't think the Tories can rely on their traditional support coming out for them. So, squeaky bum time at CCHQ.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
I think there are several blue wall constituencies that are within 1000 votes. So, with low turnout, several 10s of seats might have only three figure majorities. That could be the difference between the Tories at 130 or 90 seats. I don't think the Tories can rely on their traditional support coming out for them. So, squeaky bum time at CCHQ.
Adds to anecdotal evidence that the Tory core is wavering, with previous strong loyalists starting to look at other parties (or, at least, the option of sitting on their hands and waiting for the party to become more palatable again.)
These MRPs do seem to be predicting implausible looking RefUK eruptions (e.g. NW Leics and, in a previous example, Exmouth,) and it does look as if this one is underestimating the extent of Liberal Democrat gains. In a scenario where a wretchedly unpopular Conservative Party is being swept away, there's no particular reason to suppose that dozens of Southern Tory MPs will miraculously survive the trend just because the instruments of their defenestration are wearing yellow rosettes.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
That's his point isn't it? "We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
But is he a working person by Starmer's definition?
Tbh the whole Ratcliffe endorsement looks unhelpful. In the modern parlance, he is saying the quiet bit out loud.
You have to tax the rich. The poor don't have any money 👿
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How would the MRP, based on regression analysis and demographics, know how well Hunt is campaigning?
I’ll take your question as genuine Ian, rather than pointlessly snide. So, the conjunction ‘And’ was adding information.
He is campaigning very hard and the MRP may know differently.
It’s a serious point, building on the discussion yesterday. If there are some unusual demographic shifts affecting a particular seat, the MRP forecast for it might be a useful pointer, but it cannot help at all with local factors such as the candidates and campaigning. Far too much reliance is being placed on the constituency data coming out of MRP because it is attractive and easy to use, but it is not a seat-specific poll, but a national model, and wont necessarily be accurate for any specific locality.
Yes indeed Ian. Apologies if I queried whether your question was for real. It’s not always easy to pick up intention and nuance on a forum!
You and I both cut and pasted that very warning from Alex at IPSOS-MORI ref their MRP yesterday. It’s probably worth repeating it again:
Of course you're all sensible people and wouldn't put too much weight on individual seat estimates because you know modelling can't take into account all the complexities of local campaigns. I trust you all.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
I think there are several blue wall constituencies that are within 1000 votes. So, with low turnout, several 10s of seats might have only three figure majorities. That could be the difference between the Tories at 130 or 90 seats. I don't think the Tories can rely on their traditional support coming out for them. So, squeaky bum time at CCHQ.
Adds to anecdotal evidence that the Tory core is wavering, with previous strong loyalists starting to look at other parties (or, at least, the option of sitting on their hands and waiting for the party to become more palatable again.)
These MRPs do seem to be predicting implausible looking RefUK eruptions (e.g. NW Leics and, in a previous example, Exmouth,) and it does look as if this one is underestimating the extent of Liberal Democrat gains. In a scenario where a wretchedly unpopular Conservative Party is being swept away, there's no particular reason to suppose that dozens of Southern Tory MPs will miraculously survive the trend just because the instruments of their defenestration are wearing yellow rosettes.
I completely agree ref. the LibDems especially.
However, the caveat to myself is that the LibDems always seem to underwhelm on the day in General Elections. Or is that a little unfair?
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
Also, as I’ve awoken in a conciliar mood I want to apologise to you @Leon for being pretty acerbic. I think you can be a complete arse a lot of the time on here, and staggeringly abusive, all of which is possibly play-acting, but I was reading your backstory and it seems that in amongst all the shenanigans you’ve had a pretty rough ride on the Hyperia of life. Keep the wheels rolling.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
I wonder also if it’s residual grudge against Starmer as DPP.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How would the MRP, based on regression analysis and demographics, know how well Hunt is campaigning?
I’ll take your question as genuine Ian, rather than pointlessly snide. So, the conjunction ‘And’ was adding information.
He is campaigning very hard and the MRP may know differently.
It’s a serious point, building on the discussion yesterday. If there are some unusual demographic shifts affecting a particular seat, the MRP forecast for it might be a useful pointer, but it cannot help at all with local factors such as the candidates and campaigning. Far too much reliance is being placed on the constituency data coming out of MRP because it is attractive and easy to use, but it is not a seat-specific poll, but a national model, and wont necessarily be accurate for any specific locality.
Yes indeed Ian. Apologies if I queried whether your question was for real. It’s not always easy to pick up intention and nuance on a forum!
You and I both cut and pasted that very warning from Alex at IPSOS-MORI ref their MRP yesterday. It’s probably worth repeating it again:
Of course you're all sensible people and wouldn't put too much weight on individual seat estimates because you know modelling can't take into account all the complexities of local campaigns. I trust you all.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How are you in Woking *and* Newton Abbot Heathener?
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How are you in Woking *and* Newton Abbot Heathener?
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
How are you in Woking *and* Newton Abbot Heathener?
Joking aside, I’m mostly in Surrey this month hence my almost total lack of knowledge about what’s going on back home. I genuinely haven’t a clue whether to vote Labour or LibDem to try and remove the sitting tory. I have a postal vote down there.
Woking was down as a knife-edge on MRP but I’m extremely sceptical of that. Picking up the mood music I’d say it’s a very solid LibDem gain, as it was during the council elections.
(p.s. easy to pop into London from here when I need to. Less so from Teignmouth.)
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
For postal voters, the votes are mostly delivered now, so for them the opportunity to vote has arrived.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
On a lesser scale, there have been a series of deaths from heatstroke in southern Europe, including of course Michael Mosley.
I nearly keeled over in 42C once. It’s horrible.
Is the planet reaching a tipping point?
It is incredibly grim and reflective of climate change.
However the Saudi government’s venal, extortionate charges for making the Hajj have resulted in pilgrims from poorer countries resorting to illegal methods, with Hajjis following these routes being crammed into coaches and having to reach Mecca on foot, thus increasing their sun exposure and also adding crowd pressure.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
I wonder also if it’s residual grudge against Starmer as DPP.
Yes, that is one factor they discuss. Starmer as DPP during the phone hacking charges upset a lot of journalists including former Sun editor and current News UK boss Rebekah Brooks.
As someone in a LD target seat at the upper end of LD expectations (Maidenhead) this feels too low the LDs. Maidenhead is looking knife-edge and if we do win it - the LD seat total is likely to be 55-70. I’m hearing that Godalming and Ash is NOT looking good for Hunt.
Good morning.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
I think there are several blue wall constituencies that are within 1000 votes. So, with low turnout, several 10s of seats might have only three figure majorities. That could be the difference between the Tories at 130 or 90 seats. I don't think the Tories can rely on their traditional support coming out for them. So, squeaky bum time at CCHQ.
Adds to anecdotal evidence that the Tory core is wavering, with previous strong loyalists starting to look at other parties (or, at least, the option of sitting on their hands and waiting for the party to become more palatable again.)
These MRPs do seem to be predicting implausible looking RefUK eruptions (e.g. NW Leics and, in a previous example, Exmouth,) and it does look as if this one is underestimating the extent of Liberal Democrat gains. In a scenario where a wretchedly unpopular Conservative Party is being swept away, there's no particular reason to suppose that dozens of Southern Tory MPs will miraculously survive the trend just because the instruments of their defenestration are wearing yellow rosettes.
I completely agree ref. the LibDems especially.
However, the caveat to myself is that the LibDems always seem to underwhelm on the day in General Elections. Or is that a little unfair?
Even if the LibDems are only campaigning in about 150 seats, I’d still be looking for their projected vote to uptick towards 15% to make say 50 seats. However that would be a normal election with most of the vote split between Lab and Con. That isn’t what we’re going to get. It seems plausible that huge numbers of seats will be won with a share of 35-40%. That’s a different to usual and maybe it could help the Lib Dems in the south.
My seat of South Shropshire could be one to watch. It’s a vast area and we have the former LibDem MP standing, Labour are campaigning (they don’t usually bother), the Tory has fled from his old seat in Wolverhampton and Reform are an unknown quantity (it’s not obvious territory for them). The LibDems have been doing well in council bye-elections in the weakest part of the seat for them, that’s the East around Bridgnorth, they usually do well in the south and west anyway. We’ve got a couple of new wards added in the north which should be good for the Tories.
In this perfect storm of an election the Tory is beatable but it needs the opposition vote to coalesce one way or the other. I’m not sure it will. My judgement is that the LibDems could win the seat and are therefore the tactical vote. But Best for Britain are advising Labour - which feels wrongheaded to me.
I could easily see something like Con 37, Lib Dem 29, Labour 20, RefUK 10, Green 4. But it’s unfathomable.
After that Twitter thread yesterday about “Labour is going to turn us all woke and children will be forced to become non-binary vegans”, this, I think, is a much more likely summary of the way Starmer will go:
“Of Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidates, 35 are current or former corporate lobbyists, consultants or work in public affairs.”
“… the core base of his politics is managers, lawyers and assorted technocrats. That these candidates’ political projects are mainly popular among affluent professionals helps explain why they are so open to capture by the class of professional lobbyists.”
It’s not capture by “woke ideology” we need to worry about. That would imply some short of vision. It’s the stultifying mediocrity of the managerial class. Think Emmanuel Macron as reinterpreted by David Brent.
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
For postal voters, the votes are mostly delivered now, so for them the opportunity to vote has arrived.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
I think I’ve only done postal vote once, out of necessity. I enjoy the ritual (only slightly sullied now by the ludicrous ID rules) of going to the station and the booth; my polling place is pleasingly a bowling pavilion.
But yes - popcorn at the ready. I have booked the fifth off as leave.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
Mind you his comments will not I imagine win over many Tories to Labour but might have a few leftwingers spitting out their herbal tea and going Green.
'Mr Caudwell said he had donated to the Conservatives in 2019 “because I couldn’t possibly stand a Corbyn government, and I am still of exactly the same view there.”
He praised Sir Keir's attempts to get rid of what he called "the loony Left" which he claimed had focused on "extreme socialist policies", instead of "creating a wealthy Britain".
"We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
Sir Jim who moved to Monaco to save - checks - £4bn in taxes.
And he's lecturing other people about paying their taxes?
What a total fucking scumbag.
That's his point isn't it? "We can't tax rich people in order to help the poor because they'll go off to Monaco and other places, we have to create real genuine wealth.”
But is he a working person by Starmer's definition?
Tbh the whole Ratcliffe endorsement looks unhelpful. In the modern parlance, he is saying the quiet bit out loud.
You have to tax the rich. The poor don't have any money 👿
Surely the point is that if you create genuine wealth (enough of) the poor will be able to get jobs that take them out of poverty?
(Pretty much by definition - otherwise you've not created genuine, ie broad-based, wealth.)
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
After that Twitter thread yesterday about “Labour is going to turn us all woke and children will be forced to become non-binary vegans”, this, I think, is a much more likely summary of the way Starmer will go:
“Of Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidates, 35 are current or former corporate lobbyists, consultants or work in public affairs.”
“… the core base of his politics is managers, lawyers and assorted technocrats. That these candidates’ political projects are mainly popular among affluent professionals helps explain why they are so open to capture by the class of professional lobbyists.”
It’s not capture by “woke ideology” we need to worry about. That would imply some short of vision. It’s the stultifying mediocrity of the managerial class. Think Emmanuel Macron as reinterpreted by David Brent.
35 out of 600-odd doesn’t sound like that many tbh.
After that Twitter thread yesterday about “Labour is going to turn us all woke and children will be forced to become non-binary vegans”, this, I think, is a much more likely summary of the way Starmer will go:
“Of Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidates, 35 are current or former corporate lobbyists, consultants or work in public affairs.”
“… the core base of his politics is managers, lawyers and assorted technocrats. That these candidates’ political projects are mainly popular among affluent professionals helps explain why they are so open to capture by the class of professional lobbyists.”
It’s not capture by “woke ideology” we need to worry about. That would imply some short of vision. It’s the stultifying mediocrity of the managerial class. Think Emmanuel Macron as reinterpreted by David Brent.
An influx of professionals might pose problems for Starmer if they are fast-tracked into government ahead of longstanding MPs, or if they are not and are left to rot on the backbenches.
Interesting fact: at the 1983 election the Labour vote fell most heavily in their weakest areas, and held up best in their strongest seats, which is the opposite of what might have been expected. That's why they managed to hold 209 seats (out of 260) despite their vote share dropping by nearly 10% to 27.6%.
That's the flip side of their historically inefficient voting patterns. They are much less vulnerable to core losses.
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
For postal voters, the votes are mostly delivered now, so for them the opportunity to vote has arrived.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
For postal voters, the votes are mostly delivered now, so for them the opportunity to vote has arrived.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
We are still waiting for ours in Cambridge.
No sign of mine either. There is a chance it doesn't arrive in time before I go away, so I'm trying to work out if I can swap it for a proxy.
Labour has suspended one of its candidates after reports he shared "pro-Russian" material online.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
You were right first time: @RochdalePioneers doxxed himself as the LibDem candidate in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.
I know TP is not standing this time, but are any other PBers standing at this GE? I wonder if anyone has anybody kept quiet about their name being on a candidate list?
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
Personally I think if anything sounds too good to be true it usually is.
There are no short cuts. Exercise and healthy diet are the safest route to longer life.
The problem is what is a healthy diet?
For too long our advice has been the completely failed food pyramid and five fruit and veg a day etc which has seen a surge in obesity and suits some people but not others. And the selling of low fat foods as being healthy alternatives.
When in fact for many people's bodies cutting out carbs not fats is far healthier. I've made no secret of the fact I'm on a carnivore ketogenic diet, eating zero fruit and veg a day. Done this for seven months now and am 47 lbs down and counting. Blood healthy, resting heart rate healthy. And able to exercise more too now I'm not carrying around that excess weight anymore. All around in a much, much healthier state.
People need to be more open minded as to what a healthy diet is.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
Or because The Sun doesn't really matter anymore?
Which will also be a thing that makes Rupert sad.
The dilemma for The Sun is that their choice is to back Starmer (who they don't like) or to back a loser (which they will hate). The Mail, ghastly and mad as it is, at least has the integrity to go down all guns blazing.
ITN has just released this 8-minute video from the 1970 campaign. The Chancellor referred to by Mr Heath is Roy Jenkins. To modern eyes, it is remarkable how much time is spent on industrial relations.
Which is why Reform can promise to repeal discrimination law, the law guaranteeing paid holiday, TUPE, as well as part time and fixed term worker protections and no one even notices. Save employment lawyers who are paid to notice.
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
For postal voters, the votes are mostly delivered now, so for them the opportunity to vote has arrived.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
We are still waiting for ours in Cambridge.
Yep mine is said to be ‘around the 21st June’ and then it needs to be forwarded to me here although I may go back and collect it in person.
The latest edition of The News Agents podcast has an interesting discussion with former Sun editor David Yelland.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
Or because The Sun doesn't really matter anymore?
Which will also be a thing that makes Rupert sad.
The dilemma for The Sun is that their choice is to back Starmer (who they don't like) or to back a loser (which they will hate). The Mail, ghastly and mad as it is, at least has the integrity to go down all guns blazing.
Oh well, never mind.
Starmer should have the balls to tell the Murdochs to punt it this time.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
What bollocks. Countries like Denmark and Finland didn’t have an empire, but work fine today through the simple measure of people being OK to pay a bit more tax.
Nothing to do with Denmark having a far lower population (and population density) and fertile land enabling them to produce three times as much food as they need for self sufficiency and export the difference.
Similar arguments apply with Finland.
UK. Not so much.
This is laughable.
Much of Finland is uninhabitable tundra. It suggests that the UK's problems would be solved by merger with Greenland. Or, indeed, made much worse by Scottish independence.
And if population size is all, we can constantly get richer by cutting the country in half.
Some of Finland is uninhabitable tundra. But agriculture actually extends surprisingly far north - further north in Finland than anywhere else on earth. There is agriculture inside the Arctic Circle. Winters are unproductive, obviously, but Northern Finland in summer is surprisimgly fertile.
Their food security tops even Republic of Ireland apparently.
UK agri sector is about 1% of the economy. Oddly this doesn't matter if you are wanting to eat and there is no food around. One of the epic fails of just looking at GDP and suchlike is that not all economic activity is properly measurable by its price, but only by its value. Diamonds are expensive, potatoes and bread are cheap. Potatoes and bread have far greater value.
We don't live in an autarky. Potatoes and bread can be imported.
They can, unless there is a global food deficit and food exporting countries ban exports to ensure their own populations are fed. India suspended food exports for a while in 2022, for example.
Supporting domestic food production is insurance against the global trade in food collapsing.
What's interesting there is that most of the difference emerges at two points in time - the Great Financial Crash and Covid. In both cases average productivity in the US increases, while in Europe/UK it dips the first time. It suggests we are doing recessions all wrong in Europe.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
Personally I think if anything sounds too good to be true it usually is.
There are no short cuts. Exercise and healthy diet are the safest route to longer life.
The problem is what is a healthy diet?
For too long our advice has been the completely failed food pyramid and five fruit and veg a day etc which has seen a surge in obesity and suits some people but not others. And the selling of low fat foods as being healthy alternatives.
When in fact for many people's bodies cutting out carbs not fats is far healthier. I've made no secret of the fact I'm on a carnivore ketogenic diet, eating zero fruit and veg a day. Done this for seven months now and am 47 lbs down and counting. Blood healthy, resting heart rate healthy. And able to exercise more too now I'm not carrying around that excess weight anymore. All around in a much, much healthier state.
People need to be more open minded as to what a healthy diet is.
I just found out that my imploration against a vegan-only lunch at an industry event on "sustainability", hosted by KPMG, was totally ignored. Despite being on the governing committee.
I was on holiday at the time, so couldn't attend and only saw the output report on Monday, where that was slipped in. Ideology wins again.
I suspected as much. The person organising it was a fanatic - also against cars - wasn't shy of sharing her left-wing politics and, at the same time, was very interested in a wider group of people coming along than the usual suspects so they could "learn something".
Planning to travel abroad this Summer? If you are travelling abroad this summer and intend to use your device while not connected to Wi-Fi, you must let the IT Helpdesk know (86100) so that an appropriate roaming bundle can be applied. MSP staff and Parliament staff require authorisation prior to requesting a bundle.
Please note that this includes European destinations which are no longer covered under domestic tariffs. A spend cap of £60 will be applied to your device, you will receive text messages advising when it has been applied and again when you are approaching your limit.
What's interesting there is that most of the difference emerges at two points in time - the Great Financial Crash and Covid. In both cases average productivity in the US increases, while in Europe/UK it dips the first time. It suggests we are doing recessions all wrong in Europe.
UK dropped off in 2008, and never recovered. Eurozone was never really there to start with.
What explains that? And what are the Americans getting right that no-one in Europe is?
The US has had far more investment than either the UK or the EU, both public and private. They also have more efficient capital markets to facilitate that investment. The UK and most of the EU has been focusing on maintaining current expenditure ahead of that investment and we are paying the price.
Investors in the US are also much more interested in growth whilst our markets are interested in dividends to fund pensions or incomes. A company like Amazon was able to consistently tap the market for more capital despite not paying any dividends year after year after year as it grew to one of the largest companies in the world transforming efficiency in its sector. The reinvestment of profits allowed far greater automation and productivity gains.
I do think that there are opportunities for catch up in both the UK and EU but it is going to require significantly different government policies and priorities. None of the parties seem to be offering these in the current election.
If populism is the answer, what is the problem? I think the problem is alienation (in the marxist sense of the word - not the existential). Ganesh in the FT is absolutely right that there are no economic similarities across countries driving populism. And this is important, because there are real dangers to the left in offering the wrong sollution to the problem.
If you look at british populism. For all their professed love of country they spend all their time hating it: they hate the bbc, the other countries in the union, they hate the banks, the liberal entertainment elite like Gary Linaker, they hate the life guards, all the other parties, they hate young people, they hate foreigners. The country that they love so is a figment, an imaginary. Even the past they love so is a toxic reconstruction to attack the present they hate so. Everything is set up as enemies.
Marx has this terrific analysis of alienation that begins in work. First, you are alienated from the product of your labour.... what you make belongs to somebody else, then you are alienated from the process of work, when you become an addition to a productive process, third is the alienation of the individual self from your local environment and community (this leads to hedonistic consumption in spare time and distraction from the absurdity of life). In the fourth form of alienation parts of society split off and see other as enemies.
"We are thus led to the fourth aspect, alienation from other people, or from society. Once the traditional community (which understood itself as natural) is broken down, human beings become essentially potentially useful or threatening objects. One can now have enemies in a new sense."
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
43 days and 5 hours from election announcement to exit poll. Two-thirds is 28 days 19 hours and 20 minutes in, which is tomorrow, at 12:20.
The Conservative Party has, for so long, been a successful political party because it has been able to tie together disparate groups, who don't all share exactly the same ideology.
And it's done this by being pragmatic and remembering that there are going to be people who believe homosexuality is a sin, and there are going to be people are publicly gay, but they might share common views about - say - the size of the state.
I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was caught on tape saying that the US was in a (culture) war, and there would only be one winner.
No, Justice Alito, there is no winner. You cannot silence the voices of the 50% of people who disagree with you without actual war. And that actual war (see the Thirty Years War for an example) will end with everyone grudgingly agreeing that actually they can't agree and they can't force other people to agree with them.
The Conservative Party cannot just be the party of people left behind by globalisation. Nor can it just be the party of pensioners. Nor can it just be the party of wealthy plutocrats. It needs to be a big tent. If you choose to silence - or make unwelcome - the voices that disagree with you, then you are consigning yourself to electoral oblivion.
This is why "we didn't win because we weren't centrist enough" and "we didn't win because we weren't right wing enough" are both bullshit arguments. You didn't win because you were unable to make the tent big enough.
Where was the voting market behind monetarism when MT made that her guiding theme? There wasn't one. She decided that that was the right thing for Britain, and set about winning the arguments. That's how you get positive change. Crafting your platform out of a mishmash of what voters have found acceptable up until now is not a plan to get into (or stay in) government; it's a way to go around in circles achieving very little.
And I also don't think the issue is that Tories 'haven't been right wing enough', it's that they have sold themselves as the right wing alternative, benefitted from doing so, and changed their minds completely when it comes to actually doing anything right wing. That's a question of trust, rather than a question of politics. Those who feel that they haven't been centrist enough should vote for parties that espouse social democracy, of which there are two in the political mainstream. Why do they need a third? It smacks of reducing the alternatives available to voters because they aren't actually that confident in the attractiveness of their centrist prospectus.
Every time the Tories get into power they're lured into nanny-statism. Thatcher had enough about her to push against that for several years. Imperfect though such direction might prove I think it is beneficial. Reducing the size of the state should be top of the list for any government.
OK.
The number of people of pensionable age is rising every year: we have promised them (repeatedly) that there is no circumstance where their pensions will grow less than 2% or wages or inflation. In addition, the proportion of people who are pensioners will grow every year. And a pensioner costs approximately 15x as much in social and health care as someone in their 20s.
So: interest payments, healthcare and pension cost increases are nailed on. And they are half the budget.
We need to spend more on defence. Policing and the administration of justice have been cut to the bone.
I want to cut the size of the state too. But we all need to be realistic about the challenges facing us with a greying population.
Plus everyone wants more transport projects and everyone wants increasingly improving schools. Add on people always having a pet regulation….
The problem is that most expect the state can do more than it can do. It could only do what it did in the first place due to the revenue of empire and tbe legacy assets and soft power in the post empire world which have slowly inevitably decayed
Also, as life becomes more complex the state can do less. EM Forsters "The Machine Stops" was a boring book foisted on us at school but a very prohetic one.
The choice is collapse with authoritarianism on the way or a wholesale deregulation, a very limited state based on a principle of Caveat Emptor and an acceptance that people will make bad or inept decisions and suffer as a result and it is not the states job to prevent or mitigate this, other than to set some core, simple to understand rules (which is basically what Common Law is).
I think the die was cast though when Cameron beat Davis in 2005, or perhaps even when Wilson won in 1964.
What bollocks. Countries like Denmark and Finland didn’t have an empire, but work fine today through the simple measure of people being OK to pay a bit more tax.
Nothing to do with Denmark having a far lower population (and population density) and fertile land enabling them to produce three times as much food as they need for self sufficiency and export the difference.
Similar arguments apply with Finland.
UK. Not so much.
This is laughable.
Much of Finland is uninhabitable tundra. It suggests that the UK's problems would be solved by merger with Greenland. Or, indeed, made much worse by Scottish independence.
And if population size is all, we can constantly get richer by cutting the country in half.
Some of Finland is uninhabitable tundra. But agriculture actually extends surprisingly far north - further north in Finland than anywhere else on earth. There is agriculture inside the Arctic Circle. Winters are unproductive, obviously, but Northern Finland in summer is surprisimgly fertile.
Their food security tops even Republic of Ireland apparently.
UK agri sector is about 1% of the economy. Oddly this doesn't matter if you are wanting to eat and there is no food around. One of the epic fails of just looking at GDP and suchlike is that not all economic activity is properly measurable by its price, but only by its value. Diamonds are expensive, potatoes and bread are cheap. Potatoes and bread have far greater value.
We don't live in an autarky. Potatoes and bread can be imported.
They can, unless there is a global food deficit and food exporting countries ban exports to ensure their own populations are fed. India suspended food exports for a while in 2022, for example.
Supporting domestic food production is insurance against the global trade in food collapsing.
And if domestic food collapses due to a blight or local drought?
Being comparatively wealthy is a far better insurance. It means that we can pay more than poor countries so we get access to food (or whatever else we need) first and they don't.
Which considering we don't produce anywhere near enough for ourselves is far better insurance.
Being poor but able to rely upon locally produced potatoes didn't help the Irish when the famine hit.
UK dropped off in 2008, and never recovered. Eurozone was never really there to start with.
What explains that? And what are the Americans getting right that no-one in Europe is?
The US has had far more investment than either the UK or the EU, both public and private. They also have more efficient capital markets to facilitate that investment. The UK and most of the EU has been focusing on maintaining current expenditure ahead of that investment and we are paying the price.
Investors in the US are also much more interested in growth whilst our markets are interested in dividends to fund pensions or incomes. A company like Amazon was able to consistently tap the market for more capital despite not paying any dividends year after year after year as it grew to one of the largest companies in the world transforming efficiency in its sector. The reinvestment of profits allowed far greater automation and productivity gains.
I do think that there are opportunities for catch up in both the UK and EU but it is going to require significantly different government policies and priorities. None of the parties seem to be offering these in the current election.
OK, but why were we OK at that pre-2008?
I agree but I'm fairly sure our capital investment challenge stretches back decades.
If populism is the answer, what is the problem? I think the problem is alienation (in the marxist sense of the word - not the existential). Ganesh in the FT is absolutely right that there are no economic similarities across countries driving populism. And this is important, because there are real dangers to the left in offering the wrong sollution to the problem.
If you look at british populism. For all their professed love of country they spend all their time hating it: they hate the bbc, the other countries in the union, they hate the banks, the liberal entertainment elite like Gary Linaker, they hate the life guards, all the other parties, they hate young people, they hate foreigners. The country that they love so is a figment, an imaginary. Even the past they love so is a toxic reconstruction to attack the present they hate so. Everything is set up as enemies.
Marx has this terrific analysis of alienation that begins in work. First, you are alienated from the product of your labour.... what you make belongs to somebody else, then you are alienated from the process of work, when you become an addition to a productive process, third is the alienation of the individual self from your local environment and community (this leads to hedonistic consumption in spare time and distraction from the absurdity of life). In the fourth form of alienation parts of society split off and see other as enemies.
"We are thus led to the fourth aspect, alienation from other people, or from society. Once the traditional community (which understood itself as natural) is broken down, human beings become essentially potentially useful or threatening objects. One can now have enemies in a new sense."
The main lesson here is that populism is a far more profound phenomenon than can be solved by mere redistributive economic strategies.
(Probably some of you will clutch at your pearls for doing a marxist analysis hahahahaha)
Not at all. Marxist economics was mainly crap (there was some good stuff on labour economics) but Marxist sociology is genuinely fascinating and gives real insight into how society actually operates, even today.
We find the probability that Trump is going to be re-elected utterly bewildering. The alienation of so many who are not getting to share the fruits of the US productivity boom we were talking about a few posts ago is the closest I have seen to an explanation.
What's interesting there is that most of the difference emerges at two points in time - the Great Financial Crash and Covid. In both cases average productivity in the US increases, while in Europe/UK it dips the first time. It suggests we are doing recessions all wrong in Europe.
One thing: the US blows everyone out every time that happens. Job losses. Housing losses. The works. No mercy.
Finally some good news for Sunak on the inflation front .
I suspect that this is temporary but it is indeed very overdue good news for him. The downside is that he will start talking about his plan again and how its working. That never ends well.
Survival rates for prostate, bowel, breast and cervical cancer are only just reaching levels that other nations achieved in the early 2000s, according to the most recent figures available.
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
The link between obesity and cancer is startling. I'll try and dig out some stats but I was really surprised by them last time I had a look. The NHS should be shouting from the rooftops about it.
These new anti-obesity wonder drugs should help with this, and indirectly with diabetes (currently rocketing) as well as cancer.
There seem to be general (possibly anti-inflammatory) beneficial effects with them which go beyond what you'd expect solely from weight loss. We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
Personally I think if anything sounds too good to be true it usually is.
There are no short cuts. Exercise and healthy diet are the safest route to longer life.
The problem is what is a healthy diet?
For too long our advice has been the completely failed food pyramid and five fruit and veg a day etc which has seen a surge in obesity and suits some people but not others. And the selling of low fat foods as being healthy alternatives.
When in fact for many people's bodies cutting out carbs not fats is far healthier. I've made no secret of the fact I'm on a carnivore ketogenic diet, eating zero fruit and veg a day. Done this for seven months now and am 47 lbs down and counting. Blood healthy, resting heart rate healthy. And able to exercise more too now I'm not carrying around that excess weight anymore. All around in a much, much healthier state.
People need to be more open minded as to what a healthy diet is.
I think you are being a bit simplistic. Simple carbs like sugar, white pasta, and refined grains are of poor nutritional value, but complex carbohydrates such as wholegrain, legumes, fruits, vegetables etc contain a wealth of fibre and micronutrients. As they are slower to breakdown in the gut they do not cause the same insulin spike and are better for gut flora*. Variety in diet matters a lot.
The massive NHANES study showed the risks of a low carb diet in the long term:
Comments
Levelling up money is yet another scandal waiting to be properly exposed. I think the stupid stone chessboards with no pieces to actually play games are the tip of the iceberg.
Within the EU freedom of movement is reasonably practical. The UK unilaterally declaring worldwide FOM probably isn't.
Though it would be an interesting experiment.
Murdoch's Sun newspaper backing used to be 'a moment' in every UK general election campaign.
Famously backing Blair in 97. Switching allegiance to Cameron over Brown in 2010.
But this time around we have heard practically nothing. Is that because Murdoch hasn't made his mind up? Or because the enthusiasm for either candidate simply isn't there? Or is it a recognition that the power newspapers wield on the voter is waning?
We speak to former Sun editor David Yelland, host of When it Hits The Fan about the role old and new media plays in politics now. And whether the Murdoch clan themselves may be moving on...
Later, is Boris Johnson a help or a hindrance as he tries to endorse individual Tory candidates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv36A04cXIw
Among other things: newspaper readers are old; fears the Murdoch clan might sell their British newspapers; the Sun might back Labour but they are leaving it very late and there is no policy alignment; papers are already fighting the next election.
0-49 9/2
50-99 6/5
100-49 9/4
150-199 8/1
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/conservatives-seats
Its all about fake authenticity, hence why there is this weird trend for podcasts to sit there with hand mics when they are filming this thing on multiple cameras in 4k in a very expensive custom built studio e.g. they could have pro level sound if they wanted.
My copy is hardback and therefore boxed, so cannot confirm, apols
Experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, which produced the analysis, warned that survival rates were “stuck in the noughties”, trailing decades behind countries such as Denmark and Norway.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/19/uk-cancer-care-is-20-years-behind-europe/
Is this another function of the fact the UK population is just far less healthy than some other parts of Europe, same with COVID deaths early on. Being a fatty was very bad for COVID, it can't be good for surviving cancer either.
A second museum’s guidelines may restrict public access to artefacts because of cultural sensitivities about women viewing them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/18/second-museum-keep-males-only-artefacts-from-public-view/
In practice it would need modification of how we run things as a society. So whilst anyone could come here to work - if they could find work - they would have absolutely no entitlement to any form of Government support if they were not a British national. They would either be independently wealthy, be able to earn a living or would have to leave. It would of course also be illegal for any business to pay a foreigner less than they pay a Briton for the same job.
Any form of criminality would result in immediate deportation. Same if they were homeless or without means of support. By the way this last is already the case for many European countries. If you turn up in France, even if just for a holiday, you have to prove you have sufficient funds for your stay. 35 Euros a day per person if staying with friends or family, 65 Euros a day if you have a prebooked hotel and 120 Euros a day if you have no pre-booking.
But anyone with a job/offer here or with independent means of support should be free to travel here.
Of course we should also fulfill our duties in terms of asylum quotas etc but that would be above and beyond the frredom of movement for those with income.
No one will ever accept it of course. Both sides, left and right, even those who purport to be in favour of freedom of movement, blanch at the idea of it being genuinely free from Government interference. But that doesn't mean I can't advocate for it in principle.
We have an deeply unhealthy population, and the NHS is brilliant at keeping it alive.
Well I’ve heard that too: that Hunt is going to be well beaten. I’m just up the road in Woking.
However, he is campaigning very hard. And maybe the MRP knows differently.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/euro2024-england-serbia-fans-police-33042194
The Government has held secret talks over the financial turmoil facing a major contractor that could spark severe disruption to public services, i can reveal.
Concerns are growing about cashflow issues affecting French IT giant Atos, which has almost a billion pounds’ worth of UK government contracts.
The extent of the financial difficulties faced by Atos’s UK arm are not known but the French parent company admitted in April that it was facing a wall of debt amounting to €3.9bn (£3.3bn).
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-fears-financial-turmoil-it-giant-severe-effect-pip-nhs-3110917
Not that the anti-semitism was confined to the far right (Widdecombe). Labour had a poster of Howard as Fagin which they later pulled after a backlash. Also one as a flying pig.
Andy Brown, who is standing in Aberdeen North and Moray East, also shared a post that appeared to downplay allegations of antisemitism against Labour, as first reported by the Press and Journal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0vvjzw5ejno
Isn't that the constituency that @RochdalePioneers is standing in?
He is campaigning very hard and the MRP may know differently.
The former is my local knowledge: he really is putting in one hell of an effort. He’s also talking up his chances e.g.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/jeremy-hunt-says-seat-could-29366573
At least, unlike Dominic Raab and Michael Gove, he didn’t run away when facing defeat. He might yet pull this off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWZX3OwIzZo
ITN has just released this 8-minute video from the 1970 campaign. The Chancellor referred to by Mr Heath is Roy Jenkins. To modern eyes, it is remarkable how much time is spent on industrial relations.
These MRPs do seem to be predicting implausible looking RefUK eruptions (e.g. NW Leics and, in a previous example, Exmouth,) and it does look as if this one is underestimating the extent of Liberal Democrat gains. In a scenario where a wretchedly unpopular Conservative Party is being swept away, there's no particular reason to suppose that dozens of Southern Tory MPs will miraculously survive the trend just because the instruments of their defenestration are wearing yellow rosettes.
You and I both cut and pasted that very warning from Alex at IPSOS-MORI ref their MRP yesterday. It’s probably worth repeating it again:
Of course you're all sensible people and wouldn't put too much weight on individual seat estimates because you know modelling can't take into account all the complexities of local campaigns. I trust you all.
https://x.com/_AlexBogdan/status/1803124726673363044
BBC news front page has a baseball player dying as the fourth biggest story. That might be true. In America.
Apparently it's more important than the SNP manifesto.
However, the caveat to myself is that the LibDems always seem to underwhelm on the day in General Elections. Or is that a little unfair?
We need a few years' more data to be sure, though.
In terms of financial cost/benefit, NICE will be all over the stats in the next few years as data accumulates. I would expect them to save the NHS a lot of money over time, even though long term prescriptions are quite expensive.
The interesting question is how quickly that net benefit would materialise.
Once generic, the savings would be immense. But that's well beyond the next government.
I thought medics are just starting to ring alarm bells? Just this week for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/13/top-doctor-warns-against-using-anti-obesity-drugs-to-get-beach-body-ready
Personally I think if anything sounds too good to be true it usually is.
There are no short cuts. Exercise and healthy diet are the safest route to longer life.
https://x.com/eric_seufert/status/1802845711387537687
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/18/hundreds-of-hajj-pilgrims-die-in-mecca-from-heat-related-illness
On a lesser scale, there have been a series of deaths from heatstroke in southern Europe, including of course Michael Mosley.
I nearly keeled over in 42C once. It’s horrible.
Is the planet reaching a tipping point?
Woking was down as a knife-edge on MRP but I’m extremely sceptical of that. Picking up the mood music I’d say it’s a very solid LibDem gain, as it was during the council elections.
(p.s. easy to pop into London from here when I need to. Less so from Teignmouth.)
I’m sure I can’t be alone in wishing the poll was tomorrow. The 4th of July feels impossibly distant.
Rishi seems to be under lock and key now as well, replaced by the word ‘TAX’ which I think is probably better for the cons, albeit not an election-winning strategy.
The rest of us have two more weeks to wait and can only focus on getting our popcorn orders in early.
However the Saudi government’s venal, extortionate charges for making the Hajj have resulted in pilgrims from poorer countries resorting to illegal methods, with Hajjis following these routes being crammed into coaches and having to reach Mecca on foot, thus increasing their sun exposure and also adding crowd pressure.
My seat of South Shropshire could be one to watch. It’s a vast area and we have the former LibDem MP standing, Labour are campaigning (they don’t usually bother), the Tory has fled from his old seat in Wolverhampton and Reform are an unknown quantity (it’s not obvious territory for them). The LibDems have been doing well in council bye-elections in the weakest part of the seat for them, that’s the East around Bridgnorth, they usually do well in the south and west anyway. We’ve got a couple of new wards added in the north which should be good for the Tories.
In this perfect storm of an election the Tory is beatable but it needs the opposition vote to coalesce one way or the other. I’m not sure it will. My judgement is that the LibDems could win the seat and are therefore the tactical vote. But Best for Britain are advising Labour - which feels wrongheaded to me.
I could easily see something like Con 37, Lib Dem 29, Labour 20, RefUK 10, Green 4. But it’s unfathomable.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/18/macron-consultants-lobbyists-starmer-labour-
“Of Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidates, 35 are current or former corporate lobbyists, consultants or work in public affairs.”
“… the core base of his politics is managers, lawyers and assorted technocrats. That these candidates’ political projects are mainly popular among affluent professionals helps explain why they are so open to capture by the class of professional lobbyists.”
It’s not capture by “woke ideology” we need to worry about. That would imply some short of vision. It’s the stultifying mediocrity of the managerial class. Think Emmanuel Macron as reinterpreted by David Brent.
But yes - popcorn at the ready. I have booked the fifth off as leave.
(Pretty much by definition - otherwise you've not created genuine, ie broad-based, wealth.)
What explains that? And what are the Americans getting right that no-one in Europe is?
(Which is their prerogative, tbf).
For too long our advice has been the completely failed food pyramid and five fruit and veg a day etc which has seen a surge in obesity and suits some people but not others. And the selling of low fat foods as being healthy alternatives.
When in fact for many people's bodies cutting out carbs not fats is far healthier. I've made no secret of the fact I'm on a carnivore ketogenic diet, eating zero fruit and veg a day. Done this for seven months now and am 47 lbs down and counting. Blood healthy, resting heart rate healthy. And able to exercise more too now I'm not carrying around that excess weight anymore. All around in a much, much healthier state.
People need to be more open minded as to what a healthy diet is.
The dilemma for The Sun is that their choice is to back Starmer (who they don't like) or to back a loser (which they will hate). The Mail, ghastly and mad as it is, at least has the integrity to go down all guns blazing.
Oh well, never mind.
But will it be based on that 37% poll of the other day?
Supporting domestic food production is insurance against the global trade in food collapsing.
I was on holiday at the time, so couldn't attend and only saw the output report on Monday, where that was slipped in. Ideology wins again.
I suspected as much. The person organising it was a fanatic - also against cars - wasn't shy of sharing her left-wing politics and, at the same time, was very interested in a wider group of people coming along than the usual suspects so they could "learn something".
Physician: heal thyself.
I wonder what prompted this email to all MSPs? 🤔
Planning to travel abroad this Summer?
If you are travelling abroad this summer and
intend to use your device while not connected to
Wi-Fi, you must let the IT Helpdesk know
(86100) so that an appropriate roaming bundle
can be applied. MSP staff and Parliament staff
require authorisation prior to requesting a
bundle.
Please note that this includes European
destinations which are no longer covered under
domestic tariffs. A spend cap of £60 will be
applied to your device, you will receive text
messages advising when it has been applied
and again when you are approaching your limit.
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/1803000375059927226?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw==&refsrc=email
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XQwHLKlwjCM
As for the rest, austerity was not the answer!
https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/legislatives/en-direct-elections-legislatives-bardella-attendu-sur-l-ukraine-macron-ulcere-la-gauche-20240619
Investors in the US are also much more interested in growth whilst our markets are interested in dividends to fund pensions or incomes. A company like Amazon was able to consistently tap the market for more capital despite not paying any dividends year after year after year as it grew to one of the largest companies in the world transforming efficiency in its sector. The reinvestment of profits allowed far greater automation and productivity gains.
I do think that there are opportunities for catch up in both the UK and EU but it is going to require significantly different government policies and priorities. None of the parties seem to be offering these in the current election.
https://www.ft.com/content/a1bf2553-d454-465c-8629-34b24b568d57?accessToken=zwAGGziYRIHokdOhvyVT1FRGXNOGKTSyS1aNVw.MEYCIQCkRENl6sHH33AkbQzDlqfEYFVG4tzuAKWMg8AoLo9OcQIhAI0zzlf50LhaFIwkjCn9xka_eu9zh-QlD-cdtSlpMUBu&sharetype=gift&token=784e52f4-e23a-4336-a80f-e0cc8fdfb8dd
If you look at british populism. For all their professed love of country they spend all their time hating it: they hate the bbc, the other countries in the union, they hate the banks, the liberal entertainment elite like Gary Linaker, they hate the life guards, all the other parties, they hate young people, they hate foreigners. The country that they love so is a figment, an imaginary. Even the past they love so is a toxic reconstruction to attack the present they hate so. Everything is set up as enemies.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/24/woke-blobs-final-triumph-near/
Marx has this terrific analysis of alienation that begins in work. First, you are alienated from the product of your labour.... what you make belongs to somebody else, then you are alienated from the process of work, when you become an addition to a productive process, third is the alienation of the individual self from your local environment and community (this leads to hedonistic consumption in spare time and distraction from the absurdity of life). In the fourth form of alienation parts of society split off and see other as enemies.
"We are thus led to the fourth aspect, alienation from other people, or from society. Once the traditional community (which understood itself as natural) is broken down, human beings become essentially potentially useful or threatening objects. One can now have enemies in a new sense."
I think this is exactly where we are
https://www.yorku.ca/horowitz/courses/lectures/35_marx_alienation.html
The main lesson here is that populism is a far more profound phenomenon than can be solved by mere redistributive economic strategies.
(Probably some of you will clutch at your pearls for doing a marxist analysis hahahahaha)
Almost there...
Being comparatively wealthy is a far better insurance. It means that we can pay more than poor countries so we get access to food (or whatever else we need) first and they don't.
Which considering we don't produce anywhere near enough for ourselves is far better insurance.
Being poor but able to rely upon locally produced potatoes didn't help the Irish when the famine hit.
I agree but I'm fairly sure our capital investment challenge stretches back decades.
We find the probability that Trump is going to be re-elected utterly bewildering. The alienation of so many who are not getting to share the fruits of the US productivity boom we were talking about a few posts ago is the closest I have seen to an explanation.
In Europe we protect them.
The massive NHANES study showed the risks of a low carb diet in the long term:
https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided
* I think the distinction between simple and complex carbs goes a long way to explain the UPF effect.