One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Answering my own question, for the UK as a whole, you would need the 45 largest constituencies to cover half of the UK area.
6 of the 45 are in NI, the ten largest constituencies are all in Scotland, and there are 16 Scottish seats in total in the 45.
The opposite side of the coin would be interesting too. The smallest surface area that could command a majority in the commons. Would be tiny. Inner London plus the inner city seats of the larger and medium sized cities, and a few suburbs. A fraction of the country's landmass.
Just an aside, but it absolutely pissed it down in Yorkshire yesterday. Hours of incredibly heavy rain. Must've been plenty of flooding. Horrendous stuff. Unlikely, but if it recurs on polling day that could affect things a lot.
Don't worry about it, my Yorkshire grandma always told me
If on St Alena's day it pisses with rain On St Elizabeth of Aragon's day you'll see the sun plain
Plus the less waterproof will have postal voted. The ebikers will stay at home, apparently the motors can't take UK weather, which will hit the lib Dems.
Heh !
As an owner of 3 pedelecs, that last is one of my candidates for the next diversionary excuse to be adopted by argument-sparse PFAFFERs * on twitter, and the thicker or more dishonest journos in the Telegraph and Spectator, in between knee jerks. I wouldn't drive it through a flood; normal weather is no problem.
I'd love to hear some examples of people who chose not to vote for that reason .
For some time now, it has "but no one cycles in the rain" alongside "but road tax" and "but insurance" etc, forgetting that they themselves put a coat on when they take the dog for a walk in November.
* Pfaffers: People Focussed on Autos, Football or Flags, often all three.
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Sort the list of seats by land area and cumulate your way down until you hit 50%.
Well, yes, the challenge is finding the list of seats by land area.
Aside: They had obviously bet on a January election.
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber Angus and Perthshire Glens Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale Dumfries and Galloway Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine Na h-Eileanan an Iar Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Hexham Orkney and Shetland Dwyfor Meirionnydd Fermanagh and South Tyrone Westmorland and Lonsdale Stirling and Strathallan Ceredigion Preseli Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr North Northumberland West Tyrone Gordon and Buchan Caerfyrddin Skipton and Ripon Penrith and Solway Thirsk and Malton Richmond and Northallerton South Shropshire Torridge and Tavistock Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Perth and Kinross-shire Bangor Aberconwy North Herefordshire Central Devon Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Louth and Horncastle Bishop Auckland Mid Ulster Tiverton and Minehead North Cornwall East Londonderry South West Norfolk Gainsborough North Antrim South Down
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
I don't know why this isn't front and centre of every newspaper and at the heart of the election campaign. We are facing an impending public health catastrophe in this country, which will have massive implications for productivity, economic growth, health outcomes and the public finances, as well as being a personal tragedy for millions of people. It illustrates the collosal short sighted stupidity of making children the principal target of austerity policies - the ultimate penny-wise, pound stupid kind of fiscal policy, as well as the need for a complete culture change in our approach to food policy. I really hope that Labour focuses on turning this around, although it is too late already for millions of people whose whole lives will be blighted by poor childhood nutrition.
‘Poor kids though, innit? Fuck ‘em. We can’t be having troublesome red tape that impedes lining our pockets when it’s generally only a problem that affects thick stupid proles. Ok, we’ve decimated their playgrounds, we’ve ensured fresh food prices rise, we’ve culled youth clubs, we’ve limited child benefit throwing millions into poverty so they can only afford shit, cheap food, but these bovine masses need to take some responsibility. Besides, my kids are fine.’
The mentality of the last 14 years.
It is thick lazy parents. Fresh food can be bought cheaply , you get bags of porridge from 90p, you get cheap cuts of meat and a few vegs that will make a properly nutrious meal/soups etc. Lazy gits buying ready made shit and half their lives at McDonalds, kebab shops etc is the issue.
NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 2/4:
CON 20% (-3) LAB 41% (-) LD 12% (+2) REF 15% (+3) GRE 6% (-) SNP 2% (-1) OTH 5% (+1)
F/w 14th - 18th June. Changes vs. 12th June 2024.
The Lab drift to below 40% continues when you average the latest opinion polls. Ones like this with 41% mostly replacing previous polls that had them around 44-45-46 a couple of weeks ago.
One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Answering my own question, for the UK as a whole, you would need the 45 largest constituencies to cover half of the UK area.
6 of the 45 are in NI, the ten largest constituencies are all in Scotland, and there are 16 Scottish seats in total in the 45.
The opposite side of the coin would be interesting too. The smallest surface area that could command a majority in the commons. Would be tiny. Inner London plus the inner city seats of the larger and medium sized cities, and a few suburbs. A fraction of the country's landmass.
The 326th smallest constituency is Windsor, just under 111sqkm. Total smallest area for a majority is 14,219sqkm, which is a bit larger than the largest single constituency (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; 11,797.5sqkm) and 5.7% of the total land area.
Round up of creeps and nutters standing for Reform. Really quite something
And gosh that pic of KCIII at Troopy colz. I greatly fear he will not see 2025.
That one in Melton and Syston was all over the local paper. It isn't old Social Media.
Reform is a fascist party in all but name. These are people who would have followed Mosley, and I don't mean Michael.
No, there is a difference between Facism and just plain loopy. Facism is about a militarlarised centralised state. So Putins Russia is Facist, but Trump or Reform are not even if they are rather fash friendly.
Even with the caveats that fascism is an overused and poorly understood word and almost any time it's used in political debate it's an error... I am not convinced Trump isn't a fascist. Before seizing control of the state, a fascist needs to be sure he has the preponderance of violence on his side. If he can't control the streets, he can't control all branches of government. Trump's attempted coup showed that he didn't have that preponderance. He had a mob, but its numbers were insufficient and the security services remained loyal to the USA rather than Trump himself. But all that says is that the USA isn't fascist. Trumps wishes and methods resemble a cautious attempt to seize total control. We might not see the same caution in future. If he could get the already militarised police on his side, loyal to him, it's easy to see him enacting his clearly racist ideology on the leftists, Muslims, and other minorities.
I lean towards the idea that Trump is a fascist, but that the US state has prevented him from being a fascist in power.
Francis Fukuyama has an interesting read on Fascism in his end of history book. He distinguishes the true fascism of the 20th century in Italy, Germany and Japan from the right wing authoritarianism of the 19th and early 20th C dictatorships like Franco, the Austro Hungarians and several other central European powers.
Fascism he says had a coherent ideology, albeit a bonkers one. The supremacy of the volk, the all powerful state and the need for war and conquest as a proof of the virility of the nation. That is true of Putin's Russia but I'm not sure it chimes with Trump's vision for America.
The traditional authoritarians have a coherent ideology: family, church, traditional values. Enforced with a rod of iron but different from Fascism. True of US evangelicals, but is it true of Trump? Probably not either.
Then he describes the post-war dictators, focusing on former colonies but equally relevant to the West these days. No coherent ideology except self-enrichment or protection of clan and tribe. Patronage. That feels more like Trump. A post-colonial populist.
If we take Umberto Eco's 14 properties of Ur-fascism, I think the only two where Trump scores poorly on are: 9. "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" 11. "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. with a slight question mark over: 3. "The cult of action for action's sake", although the anti-intellectual side is definitely present.
I think there's a lot of evidence for Trump's supposed fascism. In any case, he's close enough that I'd rather see him dead than in power.
The clearest evidence for Trump being a fascist comes from his Veteran's Day speech last year where he described his political opponents as 'vermin' and promised to 'root out' marxists etc.
That speech is straight up fascist playbook stuff, and is the moment I went from 'Trump is an egotistical fool, a populist and a demagogue, but not a fascist' to 'uh-oh, this guy really, really, really can't be allowed a second term as President'. Yet it does look like that is where the US is heading.
If my near namesake is correct about the G.E. outcome being largely decided two weeks before polling day and I believe he probably is, then I for one am not expecting any major surprises from YouGov from hereon in. In fact the spread-betting markets for HoC seats has barely moved at all over the past two weeks, with the three three major parties expected to perform as follows:
Labour Sell 427 Buy 437 Mid-Spread 432
Con Sell 104 Buy 112 Mid-Spread 108
LibDdems Sell 56 Buy 60 Mid-Spread 58
On this basis, Labour's anticipated Overall Majority would be 214 seats (432 - 325 x 2).
Following 6 coppers bursting into my house earlier this year to arrest me for saying how pleased I was that the #ULEZ scam was meeting such robust resistance, this morning the @metpoliceuk were ordered by the magistrate to hand back all my devices, including my kids iPads which they took out of pure malice.
The police investigation has concluded. Perhaps the six officers sent round to my house can now be put back to investigating London’s knife crime epidemic and burgeoning anti semetism instead of harassing those who criticise @SadiqKhan and his profiteering climate scam surveillance state.
My bail conditions have also all been lifted, so I am free now to say what I said before; that #ULEZ is about power and money and nothing else, least of all the climate. It’s entirely unnecessary to the point where the @MayorofLondon suppressed his own report saying that the benefits of his climate scam cameras would be negligible to the effect of pointlessness.
These cameras are not about the climate. They are about control. They are the primary infrastructure for all sorts of things that ideologues like the midget dictator @SadiqKhan would like to impose upon us.
I can now finally say the word “Bladerunners” again. One of the ridiculous restrictions on free speech imposed by the police.
It’s a dreadful shame to see so many of these cameras dying suddenly. I’m not at all thrilled about it. Just because I am smiling like a Cheshire Cat, it doesn’t mean that I am over the moon that these scameras continue to topple in high winds. 😎
Vive la résistance!
Oh yes, and fuck you Mr. Mayor.🖕🏼 12:42 PM · Jun 18, 2024
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
I don't know why this isn't front and centre of every newspaper and at the heart of the election campaign. We are facing an impending public health catastrophe in this country, which will have massive implications for productivity, economic growth, health outcomes and the public finances, as well as being a personal tragedy for millions of people. It illustrates the collosal short sighted stupidity of making children the principal target of austerity policies - the ultimate penny-wise, pound stupid kind of fiscal policy, as well as the need for a complete culture change in our approach to food policy. I really hope that Labour focuses on turning this around, although it is too late already for millions of people whose whole lives will be blighted by poor childhood nutrition.
‘Poor kids though, innit? Fuck ‘em. We can’t be having troublesome red tape that impedes lining our pockets when it’s generally only a problem that affects thick stupid proles. Ok, we’ve decimated their playgrounds, we’ve ensured fresh food prices rise, we’ve culled youth clubs, we’ve limited child benefit throwing millions into poverty so they can only afford shit, cheap food, but these bovine masses need to take some responsibility. Besides, my kids are fine.’
The mentality of the last 14 years.
And we have improved school meal standards. Remember Jamie Oliver and turkey twizzlers? We have school breakfast clubs in many places. At the same time we have sold off school playing fields because Michael Gove was no good at football in his youth, but guess what, we shall soon be selling off more as schools are closed as the number of children falls.
Has anyone in the education world suggested keeping teacher numbers steady and use potentially declining rolls as a way to decrease class sizes?
Use it as a quiet ratchet, bit like the triple lock?
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
In Galloways wildest dreams, that's where.
Galloway. About as good at telling the truth as he is at not being a massive racist.
One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Answering my own question, for the UK as a whole, you would need the 45 largest constituencies to cover half of the UK area.
6 of the 45 are in NI, the ten largest constituencies are all in Scotland, and there are 16 Scottish seats in total in the 45.
The opposite side of the coin would be interesting too. The smallest surface area that could command a majority in the commons. Would be tiny. Inner London plus the inner city seats of the larger and medium sized cities, and a few suburbs. A fraction of the country's landmass.
Republicans in the US are constantly showing maps of the US nearly all in red to prove how evil the Dems are and how they must be committing fraud. Of course, the truth is most people live in cities and towns, and they tend to vote Democrat.
One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Sort the list of seats by land area and cumulate your way down until you hit 50%.
Well, yes, the challenge is finding the list of seats by land area.
Aside: They had obviously bet on a January election.
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber Angus and Perthshire Glens Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale Dumfries and Galloway Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine Na h-Eileanan an Iar Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe Hexham Orkney and Shetland Dwyfor Meirionnydd Fermanagh and South Tyrone Westmorland and Lonsdale Stirling and Strathallan Ceredigion Preseli Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr North Northumberland West Tyrone Gordon and Buchan Caerfyrddin Skipton and Ripon Penrith and Solway Thirsk and Malton Richmond and Northallerton South Shropshire Torridge and Tavistock Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Perth and Kinross-shire Bangor Aberconwy North Herefordshire Central Devon Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Louth and Horncastle Bishop Auckland Mid Ulster Tiverton and Minehead North Cornwall East Londonderry South West Norfolk Gainsborough North Antrim South Down
To walk from the south edge to the absolute northern tip of the old Penrith and Border (the point where Cumberland, Northumberland and Scotland meet) would take a couple of days or more, and a lot of politicians would not be alive at the end of it.
Secondly: How to spot on a map when the Tories are doing well and very badly.
Tories doing excellently: You can easily drive the whole of England from Land's End to Berwick through Tory held territory
Tories doing OK: You can do it but the route is a bit odd and you may have to swim the Humber/use the bridge
Labour doing OK: There is some red in the way stopping you once you leave the south
Tory wipeout (perhaps coming): It's just impossible even to get out of the southwest.
NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 2/4:
CON 20% (-3) LAB 41% (-) LD 12% (+2) REF 15% (+3) GRE 6% (-) SNP 2% (-1) OTH 5% (+1)
F/w 14th - 18th June. Changes vs. 12th June 2024.
The Lab drift to below 40% continues when you average the latest opinion polls. Ones like this with 41% mostly replacing previous polls that had them around 44-45-46 a couple of weeks ago.
Look at the LOESS trendline on the "since 22 May" chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election Looks like a logistic curve starting at 45% and flattening to about 42%. I do not see evidence that it's slipping below 40% without being selective in both time and pollster. The last sub 40 was fieldwork 12-13 June. It's now the 19th June.
Never look at the ends of loess curves. They're not reliable.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
Morning all. Another drop in VI for the Tories with Survation-on-the-blower, 44 polls since a like for like increase and counting...... The MRP tonight will be interesting, especially given the 140 seat one was modelled on 25% share of the vote
140 seats on 25% share sounds like a very possible outcome imo, assuming Lab aren't much higher than 40%.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
One concern I have about the MRPs is the extent to which, when you look down into the seat by seat numbers, so many have wild three- or four-way splits with projected winners in the high 20s or very low 30s.
That sometimes happens in seats, but I struggle to believe it will be very common - perhaps particularly at this election. This view is partly based on people as a whole not being too bad at judging the tactical position and tending to talk to each other and move as a flock - there can be sufficient uncertainty to prevent that, but it's fairly unusual. It's also due to the fact on the ground that there are relatively few areas where all parties are going at it hammer and tongs - there's very little overlap in the LD and Labour target lists, and HQs are steering campaigners (and particularly candidates) pretty heavily away from non-targets. Sure, there are a handful of exceptions to this and it's not true to say campaigns are doing nothing at all in non-targets - just not enough in this election to muddy the waters that much. Meanwhile RefUK are mainly fighting an air-war - it's patchy on the ground, again with a couple of exceptions.
It might be that the concern evens out on the averages - that the MRP seat totals are in the right ballpark even if the splits in individual seats aren't. It's just that the figures make me uncomfortable at that level - they are projecting something at the individual seat level that I would be very surprised to see in reality.
Another way of putting it is that MRPs are probably a pretty good guide for any constituency where personalities aren't important, where most voters don't really have a clue who the candidates are, and are just voting on party labels. As soon as you get a seat like Islington North where they are important, they're not so good.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
I don't know why this isn't front and centre of every newspaper and at the heart of the election campaign. We are facing an impending public health catastrophe in this country, which will have massive implications for productivity, economic growth, health outcomes and the public finances, as well as being a personal tragedy for millions of people. It illustrates the collosal short sighted stupidity of making children the principal target of austerity policies - the ultimate penny-wise, pound stupid kind of fiscal policy, as well as the need for a complete culture change in our approach to food policy. I really hope that Labour focuses on turning this around, although it is too late already for millions of people whose whole lives will be blighted by poor childhood nutrition.
‘Poor kids though, innit? Fuck ‘em. We can’t be having troublesome red tape that impedes lining our pockets when it’s generally only a problem that affects thick stupid proles. Ok, we’ve decimated their playgrounds, we’ve ensured fresh food prices rise, we’ve culled youth clubs, we’ve limited child benefit throwing millions into poverty so they can only afford shit, cheap food, but these bovine masses need to take some responsibility. Besides, my kids are fine.’
The mentality of the last 14 years.
And we have improved school meal standards. Remember Jamie Oliver and turkey twizzlers? We have school breakfast clubs in many places. At the same time we have sold off school playing fields because Michael Gove was no good at football in his youth, but guess what, we shall soon be selling off more as schools are closed as the number of children falls.
Has anyone in the education world suggested keeping teacher numbers steady and use potentially declining rolls as a way to decrease class sizes?
Use it as a quiet ratchet, bit like the triple lock?
It would save money in the long term, when more children come through. We could perhaps still close the RAAC schools except they are probably clustered together.
But improve standards for ordinary children? It's a novel thought.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
I don't know why this isn't front and centre of every newspaper and at the heart of the election campaign. We are facing an impending public health catastrophe in this country, which will have massive implications for productivity, economic growth, health outcomes and the public finances, as well as being a personal tragedy for millions of people. It illustrates the collosal short sighted stupidity of making children the principal target of austerity policies - the ultimate penny-wise, pound stupid kind of fiscal policy, as well as the need for a complete culture change in our approach to food policy. I really hope that Labour focuses on turning this around, although it is too late already for millions of people whose whole lives will be blighted by poor childhood nutrition.
‘Poor kids though, innit? Fuck ‘em. We can’t be having troublesome red tape that impedes lining our pockets when it’s generally only a problem that affects thick stupid proles. Ok, we’ve decimated their playgrounds, we’ve ensured fresh food prices rise, we’ve culled youth clubs, we’ve limited child benefit throwing millions into poverty so they can only afford shit, cheap food, but these bovine masses need to take some responsibility. Besides, my kids are fine.’
The mentality of the last 14 years.
And we have improved school meal standards. Remember Jamie Oliver and turkey twizzlers? We have school breakfast clubs in many places. At the same time we have sold off school playing fields because Michael Gove was no good at football in his youth, but guess what, we shall soon be selling off more as schools are closed as the number of children falls.
Has anyone in the education world suggested keeping teacher numbers steady and use potentially declining rolls as a way to decrease class sizes?
Use it as a quiet ratchet, bit like the triple lock?
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
And then there is the demographic of their membership.
How many are going to be out and about fighting for votes in 2028?
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
One of the problems with a large majority is that the idea of the opposition becoming the next government feels a lot less credible. This can encourage the media to focus on internal divisions within the government party, which makes public debate.
We have had that a lot since 2010. Initially, this was because the government was a coalition, but with Corbyn as Labour leader, and the internal Tory divisions over Brexit, it really went into overdrive.
It happened with the Blairite/Brownite divisions under New Labour too, but not so much after 2005.
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
One of the white estate areas of Rochdale, I guess.
Looks to me like the Tories are all in on 'stop the landslide', which is probably their best bet left to avoid disintegration
Stop the steal next?
"This is CCHQ calling Spalding Town Hall; if you can find us 1000 votes we'll have a seat in South Holland. It's our only chance of a seat. Can you help?"
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
What it suggests to me is that only two people opened the door to them!
NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 2/4:
CON 20% (-3) LAB 41% (-) LD 12% (+2) REF 15% (+3) GRE 6% (-) SNP 2% (-1) OTH 5% (+1)
F/w 14th - 18th June. Changes vs. 12th June 2024.
The Lab drift to below 40% continues when you average the latest opinion polls. Ones like this with 41% mostly replacing previous polls that had them around 44-45-46 a couple of weeks ago.
Reform is the only fresh thing on the menu and this election's version of the Corbynite surge of GE2017.
One saving grace for the Conservatives is that their remaining seats are likely to be large rural ones. So the shellacking won't look as bad as it actually is on a map.
What's the minimum number of seats that would cover half of Britain by land area?
Answering my own question, for the UK as a whole, you would need the 45 largest constituencies to cover half of the UK area.
6 of the 45 are in NI, the ten largest constituencies are all in Scotland, and there are 16 Scottish seats in total in the 45.
The opposite side of the coin would be interesting too. The smallest surface area that could command a majority in the commons. Would be tiny. Inner London plus the inner city seats of the larger and medium sized cities, and a few suburbs. A fraction of the country's landmass.
The 326th smallest constituency is Windsor, just under 111sqkm. Total smallest area for a majority is 14,219sqkm, which is a bit larger than the largest single constituency (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; 11,797.5sqkm) and 5.7% of the total land area.
Those politically engaged fields we were discussing the other day will be disappointed to learn that they can be outvoted by a few urban constituencies
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
Farage isn't running away with the election? We've still only had one poll putting Ref ahead of Con.
Am I the only one shocked that we've had public Hartlepool and Gillingham and Rainham polls but not Clacton, Islington North, or Sunak's seat?
To get a sample of 500 from a constituency electorate of 70,000 you need to poll 1 person in 140 from the electorate in the seat.
With poll response rates being what they are, it means you need to make contact with most of the electorate of the constituency. It's not easy.
Poll response rates are probably worse in a constituency that is seeing a vigorous campaign, because most voters seem to tire of sustained election-related contact.
And then you only have a small sample at the end of the process. They had less than 400 people in the sample for one of those constituency polls. That's a 95% confidence interval of +/-5%
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
Looks to me like the Tories are all in on 'stop the landslide', which is probably their best bet left to avoid disintegration
Stop the steal next?
Thankfully postal votes have to be in by 10pm on polling day, so that sort of situation is impossible.
The UK system for postal votes and counting votes is a lot better. The US system of spending weeks counting could have been designed to lead to conspiracy theories. I can’t think of any other country that takes so long over the process of elections, it’s not difficult to see why there’s so little trust in the system and candidates can play to narratives about something not being right with the counting of votes.
I look forward to watching a few American commentators on July 5th, when the new PM goes to see the King on Friday morning, there’s removal vans in Downing St by Friday afternoon, and the new Parliament will start to assemble to be sworn in on the following Monday.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
Though the Tories have the brand name, the history, the assets, the buildings and a (creaking) activist base nationwide and about 15,000,000 voters who either have voted for them very recently or seriously could vote for them. When you have a 200 year history these things count.
Labour could have been written off in the early-mid 80s, and after 2019, compounding their failure to win in 2017 against the worst campaign in history. We would have been wrong.
It is overwhelmingly probable that they will be back. And that now (or perhaps 6 months time) is a good time for the politically ambitious aged 16-30 to join them.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
I think we need to start considering shy Tories again. But for different reasons than those purported in the past.
The old thing was that people didn't want to admit voting Tory for fear of looking nasty, selfish etc. Now I wonder if there's a shyness born of the fact it's unfashionable to vote Conservative. So someone might say they are voting Labour, or Reform, because the in thing is to diss the Tories. No longer about nastiness, more about wanting to be with the in-crowd.
The in-crowd in the blue wall is Lib Dem or Labour. So they might be overstated if people are saying one thing but then come election day they retreat back home to Conservative. Whereas in the red wall or Eastern England the in-crowd is probably flirting with Farage and Reform, so they might be overstating it there.
That said, I was convinced there was a shy Lib Dem vote in the run up to 2015 for exactly the same reasons of fashion, and it didn't materialise.
LibDem voters are above such petty dissembling, obvs.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
Between 80 and 160? No, not that much.
There's a bigger difference between 40 and 80 than between 80 and 160 - 40 is much more vulnerable to defections, by-elections and rebellions. 80 will see a parliament out comfortably, and it'd need quite a major rebellion to lose a vote, not just usual awkward squad members.
But. Those aren't the limit of the possibilities, by any means. Wanting "the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them" is asking for the Tories down way below 100 and a Labour majority top-side of 300, maybe even top-side of 400. That's an extreme, but still very plausible, outcome.
And if the Tories do drop to third in seats then we're out of the two-party system that's existed for a hundred years. There would then open up a vacuum on the centre-right, inertia would no longer be enough to keep a party with a dwindling, aging and inactive membership dominant there. For the moment, they occupy prime place to oppose Labour because they are in that place; it's a reinforcing cycle. If you want to oppose Labour from the right then the easiest way is the Tories. But not if they're down to a few dozen seats. What then? Do the loud voices on social media stick with them or go to Reform? Same with the mainstream media? Or donors? The infrastructure that's keeping the Tories alive could easily fall apart very quickly - and with it goes such practical and pragmatic judgement on governing as remains within it, and the cultural memory of two centuries.
We should be careful what we wish for, despite the temptation and despite it being thoroughly deserved.
That said, if Labour was being responsible, it'd introduce PR and state funding for parties. Obviously, it won't.
Counterfactual: Sunak had got several flights off to Rwanda, and the boats had stopped.
How would the election look now?
Exactly the same. It is unlikely there are many voters who think the government is doing a bang-up job apart from small boats, and since even that small group is primarily concerned with immigration, they would be just as appalled by the high rates of legal immigration under the Tories.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
The notional Labour result for the constituency last time was ~4% IIRC, so it won't make a huge amount of difference! But every little counts. Go RochdalePioneers!
"Blood sample needed to go to hospital lab on ice. Lab don’t provide ice. No ice in hospital apparently. So we’ve just sent a blood sample to the lab in a frozen cottage pie 👍🏼"
Several followup tweets report similar ice issues.
Of course, this is some stupid admin problem. But that's what happens when a system doesn't have enough resources to keep up - stupid admin problems accumulate and everything gradually decays, because no-one has enough spare time to sort them out.
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
Wherever the canvasee wanted to get shut of the Galloway mob on their doorstep most efficiently ?
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
Though the Tories have the brand name, the history, the assets, the buildings and a (creaking) activist base nationwide and about 15,000,000 voters who either have voted for them very recently or seriously could vote for them. When you have a 200 year history these things count.
Labour could have been written off in the early-mid 80s, and after 2019, compounding their failure to win in 2017 against the worst campaign in history. We would have been wrong.
It is overwhelmingly probable that they will be back. And that now (or perhaps 6 months time) is a good time for the politically ambitious aged 16-30 to join them.
Those things do count, but they depend on no 18-30 rockstar politician taking a look at them and thinking he is better off outside the tent. In particular who wants to entrust their chances of reaching the top to the con membership? This GE will not finish the party off but if the ensuing leadership election is as hilariously bonkers as I hope and expect, that might.
NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 2/4:
CON 20% (-3) LAB 41% (-) LD 12% (+2) REF 15% (+3) GRE 6% (-) SNP 2% (-1) OTH 5% (+1)
F/w 14th - 18th June. Changes vs. 12th June 2024.
The Lab drift to below 40% continues when you average the latest opinion polls. Ones like this with 41% mostly replacing previous polls that had them around 44-45-46 a couple of weeks ago.
Reform is the only fresh thing on the menu and this election's version of the Corbynite surge of GE2017.
Discuss.
Or the 2010 Cleggasm?
To be honest I was just thinking about comparable elections to this one. I was thinking that in 2010 Brown had a bit of shocker. Similar to Sunak thus far.
But, it certainly was more disciplined and more energetic than we have had so far from the Conservatives (personally I think Mandleson earned his money for Labour in that campaign).
NEW: Astonishing interview with Cabinet Minister who says "we're gonna get it in the neck, all of us", with polls “clearly pointing at a large Labour majority”.
"I don't know how large that will be, but you know, I'm not I'm not stupid either."
Says errors left public "very unhappy”:
From Welsh Secretary David TC Davies
If internal Tory polling looked like they could still squeak out 25-30%, as many people on here think they can, would so many Tory ministers publicly saying the above?
To me, the tone of it is quite a bit different to the slightly more bullish “Don’t let Labour have a super majority” from last week.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
Russia has been murdering dissidents abroad for over a century. The first such murders (often poisonings) were seen in Paris among the White emigre community there.
The sensible thing to do when something occurs is to ask “What happened the previous 27 times?”
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
Though the Tories have the brand name, the history, the assets, the buildings and a (creaking) activist base nationwide and about 15,000,000 voters who either have voted for them very recently or seriously could vote for them. When you have a 200 year history these things count.
Labour could have been written off in the early-mid 80s, and after 2019, compounding their failure to win in 2017 against the worst campaign in history. We would have been wrong.
It is overwhelmingly probable that they will be back. And that now (or perhaps 6 months time) is a good time for the politically ambitious aged 16-30 to join them.
It is not "overwhelmingly probable". It'd make it about a 70% shot that the Tories are back in office this side of 2040 - and that figure easily drops below 50% if they have the kind of election the Lib Dems or Scottish Labour did in 2015.
There are enough instances of once-dominant parties falling to lesser status, or even into nothing, for that to be a realistic prospect now. The question is whether something (or some things) can permanently replace them in their primary role. For the first time since the 19th century, the answer is yes.
Looks to me like the Tories are all in on 'stop the landslide', which is probably their best bet left to avoid disintegration
Stop the steal next?
Thankfully postal votes have to be in by 10pm on polling day, so that sort of situation is impossible.
The UK system for postal votes and counting votes is a lot better. The US system of spending weeks counting could have been designed to lead to conspiracy theories. I can’t think of any other country that takes so long over the process of elections, it’s not difficult to see why there’s so little trust in the system and candidates can play to narratives about something not being right with the counting of votes.
I look forward to watching a few American commentators on July 5th, when the new PM goes to see the King on Friday morning, there’s removal vans in Downing St by Friday afternoon, and the new Parliament will start to assemble to be sworn in on the following Monday.
India takes even longer, although that's because they vote on different days.
While the US system is drawn out, and non-standardised (each state having different rules), what they're doing over postal votes is generally reasonable. You need a degree of malice to turn it into conspiracy theories. Fortunately, the US has endless supplies of that, it seems.
The time between election and new administration taking over is about the civil service. In the UK, we have an apolitical civil service, so a new govt comes in and just inherits the same people in post. In the US, the senior civil servants are political appointees, so you need a longer transition to get them all in place.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Just an aside, but it absolutely pissed it down in Yorkshire yesterday. Hours of incredibly heavy rain. Must've been plenty of flooding. Horrendous stuff. Unlikely, but if it recurs on polling day that could affect things a lot.
Don't worry about it, my Yorkshire grandma always told me
If on St Alena's day it pisses with rain On St Elizabeth of Aragon's day you'll see the sun plain
Plus the less waterproof will have postal voted. The ebikers will stay at home, apparently the motors can't take UK weather, which will hit the lib Dems.
Heh !
As an owner of 3 pedelecs, that last is one of my candidates for the next diversionary excuse to be adopted by argument-sparse PFAFFERs * on twitter, and the thicker or more dishonest journos in the Telegraph and Spectator, in between knee jerks. I wouldn't drive it through a flood; normal weather is no problem.
I'd love to hear some examples of people who chose not to vote for that reason .
For some time now, it has "but no one cycles in the rain" alongside "but road tax" and "but insurance" etc, forgetting that they themselves put a coat on when they take the dog for a walk in November.
* Pfaffers: People Focussed on Autos, Football or Flags, often all three.
Looks to me like the Tories are all in on 'stop the landslide', which is probably their best bet left to avoid disintegration
Stop the steal next?
Thankfully postal votes have to be in by 10pm on polling day, so that sort of situation is impossible.
The UK system for postal votes and counting votes is a lot better. The US system of spending weeks counting could have been designed to lead to conspiracy theories. I can’t think of any other country that takes so long over the process of elections, it’s not difficult to see why there’s so little trust in the system and candidates can play to narratives about something not being right with the counting of votes.
I look forward to watching a few American commentators on July 5th, when the new PM goes to see the King on Friday morning, there’s removal vans in Downing St by Friday afternoon, and the new Parliament will start to assemble to be sworn in on the following Monday.
India takes even longer, although that's because they vote on different days.
While the US system is drawn out, and non-standardised (each state having different rules), what they're doing over postal votes is generally reasonable. You need a degree of malice to turn it into conspiracy theories. Fortunately, the US has endless supplies of that, it seems.
The time between election and new administration taking over is about the civil service. In the UK, we have an apolitical civil service, so a new govt comes in and just inherits the same people in post. In the US, the senior civil servants are political appointees, so you need a longer transition to get them all in place.
Nah. It's a legacy of 18th century travel and communications - or, in other words, the maximum speed of horses and sailing ships. The nature of the US civil service is a consequence of the timeline rather than the other way round. If the founding fathers had had the option of election on the Tuesday / new administration on the Wednesday, the culture around civil service appointments would have developed differently (it wasn't there from the start).
But their election had, and has, four phases: the popular vote, the casting of electoral votes, the transfer and counting of electoral votes, and the House tie-breaker. Other than the two that happen at the end, in DC, the rest all needed weeks between them for people to be informed of the results and to assemble in the various places - particularly with the timescale spanning winter. By the time the process was shortened, with the 20th amendment, expectations were already set.
NEW: Astonishing interview with Cabinet Minister who says "we're gonna get it in the neck, all of us", with polls “clearly pointing at a large Labour majority”.
"I don't know how large that will be, but you know, I'm not I'm not stupid either."
Says errors left public "very unhappy”:
From Welsh Secretary David TC Davies
If internal Tory polling looked like they could still squeak out 25-30%, as many people on here think they can, would so many Tory ministers publicly saying the above?
To me, the tone of it is quite a bit different to the slightly more bullish “Don’t let Labour have a super majority” from last week.
Furious Tory Minister calls. "The Labour Supermajority line is completely backfiring. It's totally disillusioning our base. People are saying "what's the point". I've had fewer workers out this week than last week. And that was the heart of the D-Day fiasco".
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:
* I think the distinction between simple and complex carbs goes a long way to explain the UPF effect.
To remain in a state of ketosis I go for fewer than 20 grams of carbs per day. Complex or simple carbs even a single apple contains more than that so is out.
There are multiple flaws with that study and the conclusion it found. Obviously it's not a double blind study so risks finding correlation rather than causation which is a problem in this era when the medical advice for too long has been that higher carbs are healthier (when my contention is they're not) so you end up with an ice cream sales cause shark attacks conclusion by comparing people who take other, sound, medical advice with those who don't.
Furthermore the conclusion is horribly flawed by making a fundamental category error. It compares non-obese people on a low-carb diet with non-obese people on a higher-carb diet. That's fundamentally flawed as going onto a low-carb diet is a cure for obesity for those who have struggled with it.
Compare non-obese people on a low-carb diet with obese people on a high-carb diet and check the numbers again.
It's a real life cohort study that looked at multiple variables. It does confirm that it works for weightloss in the short term, but does look like keeping weight off that way is dangerous long term.
It's a free country, so ignore the evidence if you like.
If you control for obesity and then there is an argument that it might be dangerous, but there are so many other confounding variables it's certainly not proof.
But you can't control for obesity. Keeping the weight off that way is healthier than rebounding it all back on again. Buy the dodgy link you gave didn't compare obese people on a high carb diet with non-obese on low carb now did it?
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
Between 80 and 160? No, not that much.
There's a bigger difference between 40 and 80 than between 80 and 160 - 40 is much more vulnerable to defections, by-elections and rebellions. 80 will see a parliament out comfortably, and it'd need quite a major rebellion to lose a vote, not just usual awkward squad members.
But. Those aren't the limit of the possibilities, by any means. Wanting "the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them" is asking for the Tories down way below 100 and a Labour majority top-side of 300, maybe even top-side of 400. That's an extreme, but still very plausible, outcome.
And if the Tories do drop to third in seats then we're out of the two-party system that's existed for a hundred years. There would then open up a vacuum on the centre-right, inertia would no longer be enough to keep a party with a dwindling, aging and inactive membership dominant there. For the moment, they occupy prime place to oppose Labour because they are in that place; it's a reinforcing cycle. If you want to oppose Labour from the right then the easiest way is the Tories. But not if they're down to a few dozen seats. What then? Do the loud voices on social media stick with them or go to Reform? Same with the mainstream media? Or donors? The infrastructure that's keeping the Tories alive could easily fall apart very quickly - and with it goes such practical and pragmatic judgement on governing as remains within it, and the cultural memory of two centuries.
We should be careful what we wish for, despite the temptation and despite it being thoroughly deserved.
That said, if Labour was being responsible, it'd introduce PR and state funding for parties. Obviously, it won't.
We have a system of state funding of parties - short money. Perhaps the amounts should be increased, perhaps the government party should also be funded.
But the Labour party did receive more than £7.5m in state funding last year.
Incidentally, this is another reason why the scale of the Tory defeat matters. If they're reduced to 75 seats and 20% of the vote (maybe 5 million votes on a low turnout) then their short money allocation would be about £2.75m, not far off a third of Labour's current amount.
Every vote is worth about £1 over the course of the Parliament, plus extra for seats won (roughly £1.50 on average for every registered voter in the constituency).
Looks to me like the Tories are all in on 'stop the landslide', which is probably their best bet left to avoid disintegration
Stop the steal next?
Thankfully postal votes have to be in by 10pm on polling day, so that sort of situation is impossible.
The UK system for postal votes and counting votes is a lot better. The US system of spending weeks counting could have been designed to lead to conspiracy theories. I can’t think of any other country that takes so long over the process of elections, it’s not difficult to see why there’s so little trust in the system and candidates can play to narratives about something not being right with the counting of votes.
I look forward to watching a few American commentators on July 5th, when the new PM goes to see the King on Friday morning, there’s removal vans in Downing St by Friday afternoon, and the new Parliament will start to assemble to be sworn in on the following Monday.
India takes even longer, although that's because they vote on different days.
While the US system is drawn out, and non-standardised (each state having different rules), what they're doing over postal votes is generally reasonable. You need a degree of malice to turn it into conspiracy theories. Fortunately, the US has endless supplies of that, it seems.
The time between election and new administration taking over is about the civil service. In the UK, we have an apolitical civil service, so a new govt comes in and just inherits the same people in post. In the US, the senior civil servants are political appointees, so you need a longer transition to get them all in place.
I'd question whether it's reasonable to have postal votes flowing in for many weeks after polling day itself.
Happy 60th birthday Boris. Don't get ambushed by a cake.
The one thing that has surprised me from various vox pops and reports is so many people (especially women, but that is probably coincidence) citing partygate as a reason for not voting Conservative. I did think that was probably dead and buried as an issue.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
NEW: Astonishing interview with Cabinet Minister who says "we're gonna get it in the neck, all of us", with polls “clearly pointing at a large Labour majority”.
"I don't know how large that will be, but you know, I'm not I'm not stupid either."
Says errors left public "very unhappy”:
From Welsh Secretary David TC Davies
If internal Tory polling looked like they could still squeak out 25-30%, as many people on here think they can, would so many Tory ministers publicly saying the above?
To me, the tone of it is quite a bit different to the slightly more bullish “Don’t let Labour have a super majority” from last week.
He's still the Tory candidate for Monmouthshire which all the MRPs are saying Labour will win.
Counterfactual: Sunak had got several flights off to Rwanda, and the boats had stopped.
How would the election look now?
The boats stopping wouldn't have made much impact because it's hard to write news about something not happening, especially when what looks like the absence of it happening might just be somebody failing to detect it.
However the precondition for this happening would be the suspension of the normal rules of causality, which would have much more impact. For example, Sunak might have let the cat out of Number 10 resulting in Queen Elizabeth coming back to life, which would have created a constitutional crisis with unpredictable results.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Inequality was lower in the 1960s.
Don't worry, the super rich are leaving in their droves. I am sure we didn't want their money here anyway.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
The notional Labour result for the constituency last time was ~4% IIRC, so it won't make a huge amount of difference! But every little counts. Go RochdalePioneers!
Yes but Labour was probably the main repository for people who didn't want to vote SNP or Tory until today, and they may have got 15%-20%. That could switch to the LDs as a result of this news.
Happy 60th birthday Boris. Don't get ambushed by a cake.
The one thing that has surprised me from various vox pops and reports is so many people (especially women, but that is probably coincidence) citing partygate as a reason for not voting Conservative. I did think that was probably dead and buried as an issue.
Same here. That surprises me too. There are many reasons not to vote Tory (same goes for all parties this election), that would not be high up the list for me.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
Between 80 and 160? No, not that much.
There's a bigger difference between 40 and 80 than between 80 and 160 - 40 is much more vulnerable to defections, by-elections and rebellions. 80 will see a parliament out comfortably, and it'd need quite a major rebellion to lose a vote, not just usual awkward squad members.
But. Those aren't the limit of the possibilities, by any means. Wanting "the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them" is asking for the Tories down way below 100 and a Labour majority top-side of 300, maybe even top-side of 400. That's an extreme, but still very plausible, outcome.
And if the Tories do drop to third in seats then we're out of the two-party system that's existed for a hundred years. There would then open up a vacuum on the centre-right, inertia would no longer be enough to keep a party with a dwindling, aging and inactive membership dominant there. For the moment, they occupy prime place to oppose Labour because they are in that place; it's a reinforcing cycle. If you want to oppose Labour from the right then the easiest way is the Tories. But not if they're down to a few dozen seats. What then? Do the loud voices on social media stick with them or go to Reform? Same with the mainstream media? Or donors? The infrastructure that's keeping the Tories alive could easily fall apart very quickly - and with it goes such practical and pragmatic judgement on governing as remains within it, and the cultural memory of two centuries.
We should be careful what we wish for, despite the temptation and despite it being thoroughly deserved.
That said, if Labour was being responsible, it'd introduce PR and state funding for parties. Obviously, it won't.
We have a system of state funding of parties - short money. Perhaps the amounts should be increased, perhaps the government party should also be funded.
But the Labour party did receive more than £7.5m in state funding last year.
Incidentally, this is another reason why the scale of the Tory defeat matters. If they're reduced to 75 seats and 20% of the vote (maybe 5 million votes on a low turnout) then their short money allocation would be about £2.75m, not far off a third of Labour's current amount.
Every vote is worth about £1 over the course of the Parliament, plus extra for seats won.
Fair point. But Short money works well for Labour, the Tories and SNP (at the moment), and less so for anyone else. It's a winners' system.
A formula based on a wider set of elections, and on votes rather than MPs would be fairer - and could then be linked to capping political donations. Short money is explicitly designed for parliamentary support rather than the necessary activities of political activism.
Just an aside, but it absolutely pissed it down in Yorkshire yesterday. Hours of incredibly heavy rain. Must've been plenty of flooding. Horrendous stuff. Unlikely, but if it recurs on polling day that could affect things a lot.
Don't worry about it, my Yorkshire grandma always told me
If on St Alena's day it pisses with rain On St Elizabeth of Aragon's day you'll see the sun plain
Plus the less waterproof will have postal voted. The ebikers will stay at home, apparently the motors can't take UK weather, which will hit the lib Dems.
Heh !
As an owner of 3 pedelecs, that last is one of my candidates for the next diversionary excuse to be adopted by argument-sparse PFAFFERs * on twitter, and the thicker or more dishonest journos in the Telegraph and Spectator, in between knee jerks. I wouldn't drive it through a flood; normal weather is no problem.
I'd love to hear some examples of people who chose not to vote for that reason .
For some time now, it has "but no one cycles in the rain" alongside "but road tax" and "but insurance" etc, forgetting that they themselves put a coat on when they take the dog for a walk in November.
* Pfaffers: People Focussed on Autos, Football or Flags, often all three.
You see I really need to think about transitioning to an EBike in the next few years when my trusty Carrera Crossfire should get its carriage clock, and picture of a spitfire, but this thing (and the huge cost for a bike with a battery) puts me off somewhat.
There was a company that did strap on electric motors but they had a terrible reputation so that's a no.
Happy 60th birthday Boris. Don't get ambushed by a cake.
The one thing that has surprised me from various vox pops and reports is so many people (especially women, but that is probably coincidence) citing partygate as a reason for not voting Conservative. I did think that was probably dead and buried as an issue.
It was the point where the polls crossed over into a Labour lead, and is probably still the moment that a lot of people decided not to vote Tory, and haven't changed their minds.
So, not a 'live' issue, but for many the straw that broke the camel's back.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Changes in the type of available, cheap food, I suspect. Processed food wasn't as large a category; most homes lacked fridge/freezers; there were no microwaves. So a much larger proportion of food was cooked from fresh ingredients.
Changes in school meal provision - the 1980 Education Act abolished minimum nutritional standards for school meals, and removed the requirement for universal provision.
It doesn't mean kids didn't go hungry back then - some clearly did - but what food was available was de facto healthier, rather than a healthy diet being a matter of choice in food selection.
Off the top of my head, but probably some truth in the above.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
The other thing to mention is just how fascinating opposition politics gets if the Tories slump to bad third or fourth places in plenty of seats.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
Though the Tories have the brand name, the history, the assets, the buildings and a (creaking) activist base nationwide and about 15,000,000 voters who either have voted for them very recently or seriously could vote for them. When you have a 200 year history these things count.
Labour could have been written off in the early-mid 80s, and after 2019, compounding their failure to win in 2017 against the worst campaign in history. We would have been wrong.
It is overwhelmingly probable that they will be back. And that now (or perhaps 6 months time) is a good time for the politically ambitious aged 16-30 to join them.
It is not "overwhelmingly probable". It'd make it about a 70% shot that the Tories are back in office this side of 2040 - and that figure easily drops below 50% if they have the kind of election the Lib Dems or Scottish Labour did in 2015.
There are enough instances of once-dominant parties falling to lesser status, or even into nothing, for that to be a realistic prospect now. The question is whether something (or some things) can permanently replace them in their primary role. For the first time since the 19th century, the answer is yes.
Thanks. Fair points. My view is based on this: The LDs are unlikely to replace the Tory party as the 'other' possible party of government; they don't have sufficient presence in much of the UK and currently are too little associated with the gap there would be in the market. Its support base fell apart as soon as they were exposed to the actual compromises of power post 2010.
The gap would be on the centrist right. Crucially Reform is not it, its support base being rooted in the populism of simple solutions to complex problems.
Therefore the Tories have no alternative in waiting on the centre right. The 15 million potential Tory support base at the moment has lent some support to LDs and Labour, the populist element of course to Reform. But large numbers of the 15million are still choosing one of Tory, DK or Won't Vote.
Add up the Vote Lenders (I am one), DK, reform Populists, Still Tory and Won't Vote and you have a national potential winning coalition.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
I don't know why this isn't front and centre of every newspaper and at the heart of the election campaign. We are facing an impending public health catastrophe in this country, which will have massive implications for productivity, economic growth, health outcomes and the public finances, as well as being a personal tragedy for millions of people. It illustrates the collosal short sighted stupidity of making children the principal target of austerity policies - the ultimate penny-wise, pound stupid kind of fiscal policy, as well as the need for a complete culture change in our approach to food policy. I really hope that Labour focuses on turning this around, although it is too late already for millions of people whose whole lives will be blighted by poor childhood nutrition.
‘Poor kids though, innit? Fuck ‘em. We can’t be having troublesome red tape that impedes lining our pockets when it’s generally only a problem that affects thick stupid proles. Ok, we’ve decimated their playgrounds, we’ve ensured fresh food prices rise, we’ve culled youth clubs, we’ve limited child benefit throwing millions into poverty so they can only afford shit, cheap food, but these bovine masses need to take some responsibility. Besides, my kids are fine.’
The mentality of the last 14 years.
It is thick lazy parents. Fresh food can be bought cheaply , you get bags of porridge from 90p, you get cheap cuts of meat and a few vegs that will make a properly nutrious meal/soups etc. Lazy gits buying ready made shit and half their lives at McDonalds, kebab shops etc is the issue.
You are either being ironic or swallowed a shedload of extremist neoliberal propaganda, propaganda that blames the victims of systemic failure on the individual. Again.
How can you not see that children are subject to a toxic nutritional environment?.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
I think we exaggerate the importance of the difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160, but I think it does matter. A very small Conservative Party will find it harder to represent the whole nation and to have the people to re-build.
When has it ever represented the whole nation?
Before Sexual intercourse began In nineteen sixty-three (which was rather late for me) - Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban And the Beatles' first LP. Roughly.
NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 2/4:
CON 20% (-3) LAB 41% (-) LD 12% (+2) REF 15% (+3) GRE 6% (-) SNP 2% (-1) OTH 5% (+1)
F/w 14th - 18th June. Changes vs. 12th June 2024.
The Lab drift to below 40% continues when you average the latest opinion polls. Ones like this with 41% mostly replacing previous polls that had them around 44-45-46 a couple of weeks ago.
Reform is the only fresh thing on the menu and this election's version of the Corbynite surge of GE2017.
Discuss.
Or the 2010 Cleggasm?
To be honest I was just thinking about comparable elections to this one. I was thinking that in 2010 Brown had a bit of shocker. Similar to Sunak thus far.
But, it certainly was more disciplined and more energetic than we have had so far from the Conservatives (personally I think Mandleson earned his money for Labour in that campaign).
Brown sort of had a bit of a shocker in 2010 but actually Labour had been recovering in the polls since its nadir following the global financial crisis. Really, it is the Conservatives who had the shocker and the LibDems who over-achieved to convert a clear poll lead into a hung parliament and coalition government.
NEW: Astonishing interview with Cabinet Minister who says "we're gonna get it in the neck, all of us", with polls “clearly pointing at a large Labour majority”.
"I don't know how large that will be, but you know, I'm not I'm not stupid either."
Says errors left public "very unhappy”:
From Welsh Secretary David TC Davies
If internal Tory polling looked like they could still squeak out 25-30%, as many people on here think they can, would so many Tory ministers publicly saying the above?
To me, the tone of it is quite a bit different to the slightly more bullish “Don’t let Labour have a super majority” from last week.
Furious Tory Minister calls. "The Labour Supermajority line is completely backfiring. It's totally disillusioning our base. People are saying "what's the point". I've had fewer workers out this week than last week. And that was the heart of the D-Day fiasco".
Should have called a January election when no parties could campaign over Christmas and the new year period.
im not tremendously convinced that the electorate are particularly worried about the size of the Labour majority. I think everyone expects them to get 4/5 years of having a go (and sod seat counts) and then everyone will check back in in 2028/2029.
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
I care, in the sense that I want the electorate to mop the floor with the Tories.
But you're right. I think there's even a slight risk that talk of record-breaking majorities might tempt people to be part of history. I want the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them. Functionally, is there any difference between a majority of 80 and one of 160? I don't think there is.
Between 80 and 160? No, not that much.
There's a bigger difference between 40 and 80 than between 80 and 160 - 40 is much more vulnerable to defections, by-elections and rebellions. 80 will see a parliament out comfortably, and it'd need quite a major rebellion to lose a vote, not just usual awkward squad members.
But. Those aren't the limit of the possibilities, by any means. Wanting "the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them" is asking for the Tories down way below 100 and a Labour majority top-side of 300, maybe even top-side of 400. That's an extreme, but still very plausible, outcome.
And if the Tories do drop to third in seats then we're out of the two-party system that's existed for a hundred years. There would then open up a vacuum on the centre-right, inertia would no longer be enough to keep a party with a dwindling, aging and inactive membership dominant there. For the moment, they occupy prime place to oppose Labour because they are in that place; it's a reinforcing cycle. If you want to oppose Labour from the right then the easiest way is the Tories. But not if they're down to a few dozen seats. What then? Do the loud voices on social media stick with them or go to Reform? Same with the mainstream media? Or donors? The infrastructure that's keeping the Tories alive could easily fall apart very quickly - and with it goes such practical and pragmatic judgement on governing as remains within it, and the cultural memory of two centuries.
We should be careful what we wish for, despite the temptation and despite it being thoroughly deserved.
That said, if Labour was being responsible, it'd introduce PR and state funding for parties. Obviously, it won't.
This is the best post I have read for a long while, the last paragraph is spot on, at this stage I can see Reform out polling the Torys, and with FPTP, if the Torys die off, within 10 years Reform are in government, with possibly Tommy two names as home secretary
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Changes in the type of available, cheap food, I suspect. Processed food wasn't as large a category; most homes lacked fridge/freezers; there were no microwaves. So a much larger proportion of food was cooked from fresh ingredients.
Changes in school meal provision - the 1980 Education Act abolished minimum nutritional standards for school meals, and removed the requirement for universal provision.
It doesn't mean kids didn't go hungry back then - some clearly did - but what food was available was de facto healthier, rather than a healthy diet being a matter of choice in food selection.
Off the top of my head, but probably some truth in the above.
But also children were (iirc) smaller then, which today we are taking as a sign of malnutrition, and if you see photos (pro tip: do not google for pictures of kids with their shirts off) from back then, all their ribs are showing.
And there was fast food back in the 1960s, especially fish and chips, fried in animal fat not oil like today. Even at home, so much food was fried that the government used to run television adverts about chip pan fires. And yet people were, by and large, although not universally, slimmer. So it is complicated.
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
The notional Labour result for the constituency last time was ~4% IIRC, so it won't make a huge amount of difference! But every little counts. Go RochdalePioneers!
Some of the hypothecations for the seat are fun. I've been coming last behind the Greens - who aren't running - and behind Labour and Reform. The latter who will absolutely be taking votes off the Tory from what I see on social media.
Although I doubt the Tory collapse will get this far down the defence list, Bet365 have priced the Lib Dems at 20-1 in East Surrey (Coutinho's seat, 24k majority). I think that's way off - elsewhere it's 9 or 10 - and will get on accordingly. The tactical voting sites say Labour for this, probably accounting for the boundary changes adding a more Labourey area, but I live here and the Lib Dems seem serious value at that price - they have longstanding local representation and a strong ground game in much of the constituency, and were second in 2019.
@LloydBanks - Thanks for that feedback. Good post. The LDs wont be targeting it so it would be interesting getting some feedback from you as to the level of activity by the LDs there. Is there noticeable effort from the local LDs who aren't moving elsewhere?
The MRP polls and tactical voting sites are frustrating with some seats. The big Lab lead and the low LD percentage does distort a lot of seats where the LDs are the challengers. Labour will come through from 3rd to win in some seats, but the confusion could also cause the Tories to hold more seats because of the split opposition in what are typically considered LD/Tory seats.
@kjh not massively - but the LD leaflet is the only one I've had through the door so far (there were Tory ones in the locals). No visits yet, but also no peep out of the other parties either. Not much help really, but my instinct is the LD price is far too high for the kind of constituency East Surrey is
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Inequality was lower in the 1960s.
Don't worry, the super rich are leaving in their droves. I am sure we didn't want their money here anyway.
Whilst true, it just illustrates the problem. How do you run a nation-state if you cannot tax the rich (who leave), nor the poor (who have no money). The present solution (importing young people en masse) just causes new problems. Is there still a meaningful place for the British nation state in the 2020s and, if so, from where does it draw its tax income? There's no such thing as a free government.
...The report comes after the Guardian revealed ministers were told they were putting children at lifelong risk of ill health after shelving policies to tackle obesity and junk food until 2025.
Michael Marmot, the director of UCL’s institute of health equity, said the new report spotlighted a dramatic worsening in children’s health in the last decade.
“We used to think of the combination of undernutrition and obesity as a feature of low and middle income countries. We are now seeing it in Britain in 2024.”
“Over a century of history has led us to expect continuous improvements in health. Over the last dozen years that has changed. Healthy life expectancy has declined. Quite simply, people’s fundamental human needs are not being met.”
The Food Foundation report, which included a new analysis of data from government and health sources, spotlighted the rapidly deteriorating state of children’s health.
The height of five-year-olds in the UK has been falling since 2013 and children are also shorter than those in almost all other comparable countries, the report said.
Obesity levels among 10 and 11-year-olds in England have increased by 30% since 2006, with one in five children already officially obese by the time they leave primary school, researchers found.
Cases of type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity, have risen by 22% among those aged under 25 in England and Wales in the last five years, the study added...
What are the "fundamental human needs" that aren't being met?
In the 1960s we were loads poorer than now. How did we manage, without foodbanks, to have a better fed population (especially children) than in 2024?
Inequality was lower in the 1960s.
Don't worry, the super rich are leaving in their droves. I am sure we didn't want their money here anyway.
Whilst true, it just illustrates the problem. How do you run a nation-state if you cannot tax the rich (who leave), nor the poor (who have no money). The present solution (importing young people en masse) just causes new problems. Is there still a meaningful place for the British nation state in the 2020s and, if so, from where does it draw its tax income? There's no such thing as a free government.
Rachel Reeves really should be getting asked how she is going to fund the additional deficit created by this policy of driving big spenders overseas. The idea that this is going to create additional funds for the NHS is frankly delusional. It is based on the thinking that a Nation State can do what it likes and people just have to wear it. Well, they don't, especially these kind of people.
This is my photo quota for today, the outfit worn by 22 year old professional cyclist Kate Richardson of the "Lifeplus Wahoo" Tour of Britain team, when she was knocked off her cycle whilst training on June 4th by a man who forced his SUV past her at speed on a blind bend on a single track road near Holmfirth.
The collision fractured her shoulder, which is borderline ABH / GBH - charging standard for "causing serious injury by ... cycling/driving" is equivalent to GBH. GBH starts with 'broken bones'.
The man then drove away, but later returned, stopped his vehicle, got out, verbally abused her, then got back in his vehicle and drove off *. This one may get tracked down and prosecuted, but widespread non (or minimal) enforcement imo contributes to a culture.
I've been reflecting on @Cyclefree 's piece from a few days ago about threats of, or actual, violence against women, and how in some circumstances it is deemed either acceptable or tolerable. Others' language / behaviour can create a culture making threats or violence by perpetrators seem acceptable.
Lunging with a vehicle at a woman (ignoring the accompanying man) riding a cycle when in a couple is not unknown. I've even seen one report where a man started beating up someone he had pushed off their cycle, then stopped and apologised because he thought she was a man.
There's some weird mental gymnastics going on. There are other categories, but deliberate violence against women riding cycles is one of them.
Here's another one from April 2024 where the 'offence' by the 20 year old female victim was to wave a tailgating Land Rover driver to not be so close. Again the pattern is stops vehicle, gets out, assaults woman. **
Comments
As an owner of 3 pedelecs, that last is one of my candidates for the next diversionary excuse to be adopted by argument-sparse PFAFFERs * on twitter, and the thicker or more dishonest journos in the Telegraph and Spectator, in between knee jerks. I wouldn't drive it through a flood; normal weather is no problem.
I'd love to hear some examples of people who chose not to vote for that reason
For some time now, it has "but no one cycles in the rain" alongside "but road tax" and "but insurance" etc, forgetting that they themselves put a coat on when they take the dog for a walk in November.
* Pfaffers: People Focussed on Autos, Football or Flags, often all three.
https://x.com/georgegalloway/status/1803197817214706022
Farage is running away with this election because of the sheer emptiness of the leaders and programs of the Tory and Labour uniparty. In one ward we canvassed tonight @reformparty_uk had fully 50% of the vote.
Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Angus and Perthshire Glens
Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Dumfries and Galloway
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe
Hexham
Orkney and Shetland
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Fermanagh and South Tyrone
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Stirling and Strathallan
Ceredigion Preseli
Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr
North Northumberland
West Tyrone
Gordon and Buchan
Caerfyrddin
Skipton and Ripon
Penrith and Solway
Thirsk and Malton
Richmond and Northallerton
South Shropshire
Torridge and Tavistock
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Perth and Kinross-shire
Bangor Aberconwy
North Herefordshire
Central Devon
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Louth and Horncastle
Bishop Auckland
Mid Ulster
Tiverton and Minehead
North Cornwall
East Londonderry
South West Norfolk
Gainsborough
North Antrim
South Down
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/12/trump-rally-vermin-political-opponents/
That speech is straight up fascist playbook stuff, and is the moment I went from 'Trump is an egotistical fool, a populist and a demagogue, but not a fascist' to 'uh-oh, this guy really, really, really can't be allowed a second term as President'. Yet it does look like that is where the US is heading.
In fact the spread-betting markets for HoC seats has barely moved at all over the past two weeks, with the three three major parties expected to perform as follows:
Labour Sell 427 Buy 437 Mid-Spread 432
Con Sell 104 Buy 112 Mid-Spread 108
LibDdems Sell 56 Buy 60 Mid-Spread 58
On this basis, Labour's anticipated Overall Majority would be 214 seats (432 - 325 x 2).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/general-election-latest-news-sunak-starmer-farage/
Following 6 coppers bursting into my house earlier this year to arrest me for saying how pleased I was that the #ULEZ scam was meeting such robust resistance, this morning the @metpoliceuk were ordered by the magistrate to hand back all my devices, including my kids iPads which they took out of pure malice.
The police investigation has concluded. Perhaps the six officers sent round to my house can now be put back to investigating London’s knife crime epidemic and burgeoning anti semetism instead of harassing those who criticise @SadiqKhan
and his profiteering climate scam surveillance state.
My bail conditions have also all been lifted, so I am free now to say what I said before; that #ULEZ is about power and money and nothing else, least of all the climate. It’s entirely unnecessary to the point where the @MayorofLondon suppressed his own report saying that the benefits of his climate scam cameras would be negligible to the effect of pointlessness.
These cameras are not about the climate. They are about control. They are the primary infrastructure for all sorts of things that ideologues like the midget dictator @SadiqKhan would like to impose upon us.
I can now finally say the word “Bladerunners” again. One of the ridiculous restrictions on free speech imposed by the police.
It’s a dreadful shame to see so many of these cameras dying suddenly. I’m not at all thrilled about it. Just because I am smiling like a Cheshire Cat, it doesn’t mean that I am over the moon that these scameras continue to topple in high winds. 😎
Vive la résistance!
Oh yes, and fuck you Mr. Mayor.🖕🏼
12:42 PM · Jun 18, 2024
1M Views
https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1803030521095622912
I know that feels a bit odd, but that’s the sense I get.
Use it as a quiet ratchet, bit like the triple lock?
Secondly: How to spot on a map when the Tories are doing well and very badly.
Tories doing excellently: You can easily drive the whole of England from Land's End to Berwick through Tory held territory
Tories doing OK: You can do it but the route is a bit odd and you may have to swim the Humber/use the bridge
Labour doing OK: There is some red in the way stopping you once you leave the south
Tory wipeout (perhaps coming): It's just impossible even to get out of the southwest.
Someone should turn this into a board game.
All of a sudden you could have vast swathes of the country where if you want to get rid of your Labour MP you have to vote REFUK, or LD, rather than Tory. That matters in FPTP. It makes it much more likely that if the right wants to rebuild it has to make some form of alliance/electoral pact which would be fascinating.
But improve standards for ordinary children? It's a novel thought.
2007.. 690013.. Leaving
2008.. 708711
2009.. 706248
2010.. 723165
2011.. 723913
2012.. 729674
2013.. 698512
2014.. 695233
2015.. 697852
2016.. 696271
2017.. 679106
2018.. 657076
2019.. 640370
2020.. 613936.. Entering
2021.. 624828
2022.. 605479
How many are going to be out and about fighting for votes in 2028?
"Sunder Katwala
@sundersays
Labour has suspended a candidate, Andy Brown, in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, for sharing conspiracy theories doubting Russia's role in the Salisbury poisonings. (Brown will still appear on the ballot in the Tory v SNP marginal seat)"
https://x.com/sundersays/status/1803190204498583782
We have had that a lot since 2010. Initially, this was because the government was a coalition, but with Corbyn as Labour leader, and the internal Tory divisions over Brexit, it really went into overdrive.
It happened with the Blairite/Brownite divisions under New Labour too, but not so much after 2005.
How would the election look now?
Discuss.
With poll response rates being what they are, it means you need to make contact with most of the electorate of the constituency. It's not easy.
Poll response rates are probably worse in a constituency that is seeing a vigorous campaign, because most voters seem to tire of sustained election-related contact.
And then you only have a small sample at the end of the process. They had less than 400 people in the sample for one of those constituency polls. That's a 95% confidence interval of +/-5%
I look forward to watching a few American commentators on July 5th, when the new PM goes to see the King on Friday morning, there’s removal vans in Downing St by Friday afternoon, and the new Parliament will start to assemble to be sworn in on the following Monday.
these things count.
Labour could have been written off in the early-mid 80s, and after 2019, compounding their failure to win in 2017 against the worst campaign in history. We would have been wrong.
It is overwhelmingly probable that they will be back. And that now (or perhaps 6 months time) is a good time for the politically ambitious aged 16-30 to join them.
There's a bigger difference between 40 and 80 than between 80 and 160 - 40 is much more vulnerable to defections, by-elections and rebellions. 80 will see a parliament out comfortably, and it'd need quite a major rebellion to lose a vote, not just usual awkward squad members.
But. Those aren't the limit of the possibilities, by any means. Wanting "the Tory party to really feel every exquisite kick the electorate offers them" is asking for the Tories down way below 100 and a Labour majority top-side of 300, maybe even top-side of 400. That's an extreme, but still very plausible, outcome.
And if the Tories do drop to third in seats then we're out of the two-party system that's existed for a hundred years. There would then open up a vacuum on the centre-right, inertia would no longer be enough to keep a party with a dwindling, aging and inactive membership dominant there. For the moment, they occupy prime place to oppose Labour because they are in that place; it's a reinforcing cycle. If you want to oppose Labour from the right then the easiest way is the Tories. But not if they're down to a few dozen seats. What then? Do the loud voices on social media stick with them or go to Reform? Same with the mainstream media? Or donors? The infrastructure that's keeping the Tories alive could easily fall apart very quickly - and with it goes such practical and pragmatic judgement on governing as remains within it, and the cultural memory of two centuries.
We should be careful what we wish for, despite the temptation and despite it being thoroughly deserved.
That said, if Labour was being responsible, it'd introduce PR and state funding for parties. Obviously, it won't.
"Blood sample needed to go to hospital lab on ice. Lab don’t provide ice. No ice in hospital apparently. So we’ve just sent a blood sample to the lab in a frozen cottage pie 👍🏼"
https://x.com/jrm_black/status/1803234230270316714
Several followup tweets report similar ice issues.
Of course, this is some stupid admin problem. But that's what happens when a system doesn't have enough resources to keep up - stupid admin problems accumulate and everything gradually decays, because no-one has enough spare time to sort them out.
To be honest I was just thinking about comparable elections to this one. I was thinking that in 2010 Brown had a bit of shocker. Similar to Sunak thus far.
But, it certainly was more disciplined and more energetic than we have had so far from the Conservatives (personally I think Mandleson earned his money for Labour in that campaign).
NEW: Astonishing interview with Cabinet Minister who says "we're gonna get it in the neck, all of us", with polls “clearly pointing at a large Labour majority”.
"I don't know how large that will be, but you know, I'm not I'm not stupid either."
Says errors left public "very unhappy”:
From Welsh Secretary David TC Davies
If internal Tory polling looked like they could still squeak out 25-30%, as many people on here think they can, would so many Tory ministers publicly saying the above?
To me, the tone of it is quite a bit different to the slightly more bullish “Don’t let Labour have a super majority” from last week.
Russia has been murdering dissidents abroad for over a century. The first such murders (often poisonings) were seen in Paris among the White emigre community there.
The sensible thing to do when something occurs is to ask “What happened the previous 27 times?”
There are enough instances of once-dominant parties falling to lesser status, or even into nothing, for that to be a realistic prospect now. The question is whether something (or some things) can permanently replace them in their primary role. For the first time since the 19th century, the answer is yes.
While the US system is drawn out, and non-standardised (each state having different rules), what they're doing over postal votes is generally reasonable. You need a degree of malice to turn it into conspiracy theories. Fortunately, the US has endless supplies of that, it seems.
The time between election and new administration taking over is about the civil service. In the UK, we have an apolitical civil service, so a new govt comes in and just inherits the same people in post. In the US, the senior civil servants are political appointees, so you need a longer transition to get them all in place.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/15/the-big-problem-is-water-uk-ebike-owners-plagued-by-failing-motors
But their election had, and has, four phases: the popular vote, the casting of electoral votes, the transfer and counting of electoral votes, and the House tie-breaker. Other than the two that happen at the end, in DC, the rest all needed weeks between them for people to be informed of the results and to assemble in the various places - particularly with the timescale spanning winter. By the time the process was shortened, with the 20th amendment, expectations were already set.
Furious Tory Minister calls. "The Labour Supermajority line is completely backfiring. It's totally disillusioning our base. People are saying "what's the point". I've had fewer workers out this week than last week. And that was the heart of the D-Day fiasco".
But you can't control for obesity. Keeping the weight off that way is healthier than rebounding it all back on again. Buy the dodgy link you gave didn't compare obese people on a high carb diet with non-obese on low carb now did it?
But the Labour party did receive more than £7.5m in state funding last year.
Incidentally, this is another reason why the scale of the Tory defeat matters. If they're reduced to 75 seats and 20% of the vote (maybe 5 million votes on a low turnout) then their short money allocation would be about £2.75m, not far off a third of Labour's current amount.
Every vote is worth about £1 over the course of the Parliament, plus extra for seats won (roughly £1.50 on average for every registered voter in the constituency).
The one thing that has surprised me from various vox pops and reports is so many people (especially women, but that is probably coincidence) citing partygate as a reason for not voting Conservative. I did think that was probably dead and buried as an issue.
However the precondition for this happening would be the suspension of the normal rules of causality, which would have much more impact. For example, Sunak might have let the cat out of Number 10 resulting in Queen Elizabeth coming back to life, which would have created a constitutional crisis with unpredictable results.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/rich-leave-london-in-droves-for-florida-dubai-and-paris-as-uk-has-worlds-second-biggest-millionaire-exodus/ar-BB1orOv4?ocid=BingNewsSerp
A formula based on a wider set of elections, and on votes rather than MPs would be fairer - and could then be linked to capping political donations. Short money is explicitly designed for parliamentary support rather than the necessary activities of political activism.
There was a company that did strap on electric motors but they had a terrible reputation so that's a no.
NEW THREAD
So, not a 'live' issue, but for many the straw that broke the camel's back.
Processed food wasn't as large a category; most homes lacked fridge/freezers; there were no microwaves. So a much larger proportion of food was cooked from fresh ingredients.
Changes in school meal provision - the 1980 Education Act abolished minimum nutritional standards for school meals, and removed the requirement for universal provision.
It doesn't mean kids didn't go hungry back then - some clearly did - but what food was available was de facto healthier, rather than a healthy diet being a matter of choice in food selection.
Off the top of my head, but probably some truth in the above.
The LDs are unlikely to replace the Tory party as the 'other' possible party of government; they don't have sufficient presence in much of the UK and currently are too little associated with the gap there would be in the market. Its support base fell apart as soon as they were exposed to the actual compromises of power post 2010.
The gap would be on the centrist right. Crucially Reform is not it, its support base being rooted in the populism of simple solutions to complex problems.
Therefore the Tories have no alternative in waiting on the centre right. The 15 million potential Tory support base at the moment has lent some support to LDs and Labour, the populist element of course to Reform. But large numbers of the 15million are still choosing one of Tory, DK or Won't Vote.
Add up the Vote Lenders (I am one), DK, reform Populists, Still Tory and Won't Vote and you have a national potential winning coalition.
Again.
How can you not see that children are subject to a toxic nutritional environment?.
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles' first LP.
Roughly.
And there was fast food back in the 1960s, especially fish and chips, fried in animal fat not oil like today. Even at home, so much food was fried that the government used to run television adverts about chip pan fires. And yet people were, by and large, although not universally, slimmer. So it is complicated.
The collision fractured her shoulder, which is borderline ABH / GBH - charging standard for "causing serious injury by ... cycling/driving" is equivalent to GBH. GBH starts with 'broken bones'.
The man then drove away, but later returned, stopped his vehicle, got out, verbally abused her, then got back in his vehicle and drove off *. This one may get tracked down and prosecuted, but widespread non (or minimal) enforcement imo contributes to a culture.
I've been reflecting on @Cyclefree 's piece from a few days ago about threats of, or actual, violence against women, and how in some circumstances it is deemed either acceptable or tolerable. Others' language / behaviour can create a culture making threats or violence by perpetrators seem acceptable.
Lunging with a vehicle at a woman (ignoring the accompanying man) riding a cycle when in a couple is not unknown. I've even seen one report where a man started beating up someone he had pushed off their cycle, then stopped and apologised because he thought she was a man.
There's some weird mental gymnastics going on. There are other categories, but deliberate violence against women riding cycles is one of them.
Here's another one from April 2024 where the 'offence' by the 20 year old female victim was to wave a tailgating Land Rover driver to not be so close. Again the pattern is stops vehicle, gets out, assaults woman. **
* https://road.cc/content/news/british-pro-cyclist-hit-driver-country-lane-308683
** https://road.cc/content/news/female-cyclist-followed-and-assaulted-road-rage-driver-308883