When a party is heading for a majority of 264 seats with 39.5% of the vote, as Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting, you know they must be distributing their vote very efficiently.
Our GEs need to be understood differently. The global % is not the main factor. There are 650 local elections in which the rules are that you have to be FPTP to win, a rule all voters know. To win 457 of these local races (EC prediction currently) tells you that a remarkable achievement has been made; it cannot be done unless you are both top dog in the mind of an awful lot of people, and no-one else is especially well regarded across the board, finally that there isn't a large enough group of people who have a firm conviction that you must be stopped.
Other sorts of democracy are available, but ours is far from the worst. The party with national coverage which is most convincingly centrist is going to win. The votes overall will go overwhelmingly to historically centrist parties. This could be so much worse.
Finally, the outfit that wins 457 seats with under 40% of the vote can lose next time with 43% of the vote. To retain power it has to be better than the rest. We are in charge.
The 2029 election might well see Labour wishing they had included electoral reform in their manifesto this time. The idea that because FPTP is working for them now they will get a few election victories is nonsense.
This is straw-clutching of the most desperate kind. Sorry to you and @TSE . You’re welcome to dream but if Labour get a 150+ seat majority the earliest election the Conservatives can be back in contention is 2033/4 and that’s if they get their shit together.
You just don’t seem to get it. They trashed their brand on economic competence. That takes a long time to restore.
They could survive Johnson and Partygate, but just like Black Wednesday in the nineties they could not survive the Trussterfuck.
Absolutely. Scandals/sleaze drain support slowly over time, economic disaster via government action or inaction evaporates it on the spot
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Yes, Farage needs to resign - now too toxic. But who should be Reform's next leader? Tice is clearly too anonymous. Is Isabel Oakeshott a possibility? Could they even cut a deal with Lozza Fox?
If Farage is toxic, Fox is trebly so! He's under police investigation for upskirting, has just lost a big libel case, is more associated with COVID-19 conspiracy theories, tweeted a swastika, was censured by Ofcom for misogyny, etc.
EDIT: I think he's also said similar things to Farage on Ukraine.
The 2029 election might well see Labour wishing they had included electoral reform in their manifesto this time. The idea that because FPTP is working for them now they will get a few election victories is nonsense.
This is straw-clutching of the most desperate kind. Sorry to you and @TSE . You’re welcome to dream but if Labour get a 150+ seat majority the earliest election the Conservatives can be back in contention is 2033/4 and that’s if they get their shit together.
You just don’t seem to get it. They trashed their brand on economic competence. That takes a long time to restore.
They could survive Johnson and Partygate, but just like Black Wednesday in the nineties they could not survive the Trussterfuck.
The Tories are now rather consistently polling worse under Sunak than they did under Truss.
The buck stops with him.
Maybe, just maybe, going into an election campaign with no credible arguments as to why he should be re-elected and banging on about National Service etc was not a clever idea?
But say the libdems and Reform get the same number of seats for second place and the speaker chooses the libdems as opposition leader even though reform get millions more votes .....how will that play out in the country?
The same people who said it was right for the Speaker (assuming it's still the silly old fud from Lancashire) to stuff the SNP Gaza motion for 'reasons' will say it's right for him to choose the LDs as the opposition for 'reasons'.
I doubt that. Labour would much rather have the Conservatives as official opposition. I don't say that as a comment on the ability of the Lib Dems or Conservatives to oppose (although frankly the Tories will be busy with their own civil war, weakening their effectiveness). It's more that Labour would want to set the next few years up as them fixing the mess "them lot over there" left - they need an enemy to play off, and the Lib Dems don't really fit the bill.
They do for five years of it. And actually they were the harshest five years, austerity wise.
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Yes, Farage needs to resign - now too toxic. But who should be Reform's next leader? Tice is clearly too anonymous. Is Isabel Oakeshott a possibility? Could they even cut a deal with Lozza Fox?
If Farage is toxic, Fox is trebly so! He's under police investigation for upskirting, has just lost a big libel case, is more associated with COVID-19 conspiracy theories, tweeted a swastika, was censured by Ofcom for misogyny, etc.
Lee Anderson. He would retain a good chunk of their vote.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
When a party is heading for a majority of 264 seats with 39.5% of the vote, as Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting, you know they must be distributing their vote very efficiently.
Labour aren't really distributing any votes. It's more that their opponents are splitting their votes very effectively.
Yup. The biggest factor is the RefCon split, and there's not very much Starmer can do about that.
(I'm not sure that there's much Reform or the Conservatives can do about it either in the short term, but hey ho.)
So Starmer might as well get on with governing well. And the 100 or so flukiest Labour MPs had best enjoy the ride.
It's good for SKS, I think. If he gets (say) a 250 majority he can mentally split it into 2 parts. A core majority of 150 and a dispensable frothy add-on of another 100. Rather like a pint of bitter with a big head on it. The 'head' he can use when spending political capital on the tough 'to govern is to choose' decisions he will need to take if he is to be a radical reforming PM in the progressive tradition. Normally a PM would have to be spending some of their real and actual majority when doing the hard controversial stuff. They'd be drinking their beer as it were. But Starmer can just pour away the head. He won't need to touch his ale until all of that has gone. Very nice position to be in.
And I think Starmer is going to need all the help he can get because the hand he's been dealt with when he enters Number 10 is just about the worst hand possible - seemingly with a few cards that aren't even part of the game..
I think he's inheriting a great political legacy and a terrible economic one. How long will it take for the second to destroy the first? That is the question. He's well placed for 2 terms, imo, but it's hard (and largely pointless) to predict out that far. I don't see Labour stuffing up to anything like the extent the Cons have since 2016 (and esp these last couple of years), in fact I expect them to govern well, but global events/factors tend to be more influential on us than the actions of our domestic governments, and we have no idea what they will be.
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
The 2029 election might well see Labour wishing they had included electoral reform in their manifesto this time. The idea that because FPTP is working for them now they will get a few election victories is nonsense.
This is straw-clutching of the most desperate kind. Sorry to you and @TSE . You’re welcome to dream but if Labour get a 150+ seat majority the earliest election the Conservatives can be back in contention is 2033/4 and that’s if they get their shit together.
You just don’t seem to get it. They trashed their brand on economic competence. That takes a long time to restore.
They could survive Johnson and Partygate, but just like Black Wednesday in the nineties they could not survive the Trussterfuck.
The Tories are now rather consistently polling worse under Sunak than they did under Truss.
The buck stops with him.
Maybe, just maybe, going into an election campaign with no credible arguments as to why he should be re-elected and banging on about National Service etc was not a clever idea?
I'd already forgotten about the compulsory unenforced volunteering wheeze. I'm sure there is a planet in an alternate universe where it all makes sense, but its not this one.
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Not exactly blew it, but put a ceiling on his success.
20% was very possible before. I wonder why he made such a stupid mistake.
Farage was showing signs that he believed he was politically invincible. All the 'wait till I've finished with Labour' stuff suggests he thinks he's some kind of superman. (I'm guessing he got this from Trump.)
And ex-public schoolboy over-confidence. Which is a repeating pattern within our political class in recent years.
Reposting from the last thread my suggested solution to the problems of the law on computer evidence -
Make failure to disclose exculpatory evidence a strict liability offence (as with eg breaches of health and safety regs), punishable by fines, and criminal prosecutions in the most egregious cases.
It would make prosecutors a great deal more scrupulous about discharging their legal responsibilities.
An easy win, offered free to the next Labour Justice Secretary.
(The alternative is spending years trying to come up with a fairer rule that's also practical.)
Or you use the Scottish approach that Computer Evidence is not by itself enough....
Disclosure has long been a problem in other cases not involving computer evidence, of course.
A mixture of tow back and Rwanda
Rwanda would certainly be more of a practical deterrent to rogue prosecutors than it's likely to be to asylum seekers. But where were you proposing to tow prosecutors back to ?
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Not exactly blew it, but put a ceiling on his success.
20% was very possible before. I wonder why he made such a stupid mistake.
Farage was showing signs that he believed he was politically invincible. All the 'wait till I've finished with Labour' stuff suggests he thinks he's some kind of superman. (I'm guessing he got this from Trump.)
And ex-public schoolboy over-confidence. Which is a repeating pattern within our political class in recent years.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
UK public opinion would draw a line absolutely at state responsibility for actual deaths by drowning. Indirect stuff and the abominations of the world is how the wicked world goes, and we all know that; but in this country a party could lose an election by kicking a dog, or drowning a child.
Oh yes, of course he hasn't a plan. No plan is possible within the limits of law and reality.
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
I think your number two is the one that really matters. Become part of the weekly news cycle again and build something for next time.
And with his newfound stunt based approach to politics, Davey could ask his PMQs whilst juggling to liven them up.
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Not exactly blew it, but put a ceiling on his success.
20% was very possible before. I wonder why he made such a stupid mistake.
Farage was showing signs that he believed he was politically invincible. All the 'wait till I've finished with Labour' stuff suggests he thinks he's some kind of superman. (I'm guessing he got this from Trump.)
And ex-public schoolboy over-confidence. Which is a repeating pattern within our political class in recent years.
Anecdata: colleague (politically engaged, has been following election news, anti-Tory) told me earlier "I've had enough of the election now. It's been going on too long. Just get it over with. Everyone's focused on the football now".
That's a problem for Tories hoping for swingback. How many people are examining their pained consciences ahead of next Thursday and awaiting the final head to head debate with bated breath before they make their final decision? I would contend very few. How many already have election fatigue?
Also a signifier of low turnout, if it's universal.
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Not exactly blew it, but put a ceiling on his success.
20% was very possible before. I wonder why he made such a stupid mistake.
Farage was showing signs that he believed he was politically invincible. All the 'wait till I've finished with Labour' stuff suggests he thinks he's some kind of superman. (I'm guessing he got this from Trump.)
And ex-public schoolboy over-confidence. Which is a repeating pattern within our political class in recent years.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But Ian and Clipp please do cut the LD party politicking. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
Hypothetically, how many people would you be prepared to kill before concluding your plan wasn't working ?
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
The numbers are very close to the More In Common data which makes me wonder if there is any similarity in methodology, sampling or weighting. The 25% Conservative VI share is very different to the 18-19% elsewhere but as I said last night there's a clear distinction in the sampling of the 65+ age group. MiC had the Conservative share at 40% (well down on the 64% from 2019) whereas Redfield & Wilton had a 25% Conservative share (Labour 34%, Reform 20%).
If R&W is correct the swing among the 65+ from 2019 would be a whopping 28% - MiC has 16%. The headline swing with MiC is 14.5%, with R&W it's 18%.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
I think that ultimately the west will end up revisiting "what is a refugee". It seemed so clear in 1945. Arguably it still is, but its now so widely open to abuse. If you can get to the UK and 'lose your papers' you can claim anything, and how can it be disproven?
And you know - in many ways a thriving confident country would want you, motivated people to come and boost the country. The ones who take the risks are trying to better themselves. They are not coming for the benefits, they are coming to earn money and live a better life. For sure we need to ensure that those that come understand that the UK is a tolerant society and has little truck with ancient religions. Come to the UK we expect you to want to fit in, and most do.
My picture of the day (indeed, week)! My Vote Compass results for Northern Ireland.
Interesting chart - who do you vote for if you are a socialist Unionist, or a right-wing Nationalist?
(And why are Irish nationalists left wing? In most other places nationalism is firmly right wing).
The Progressive Unionist Party is unionist and left-wing, and has 1 councillor. But they're not standing in the general election and also very paramilitary associated! Some in the Labour Party are keen to stand in Northern Ireland, and they did, I believe, in 2016, but don't currently. There is the breakaway Cross-Community Labour Alternative standing in 1 seat, but I'm unclear on their position on the union.
Aontú are socially conservative nationalists. They have had representation in NI previously, but don't at present. They do have representation in the Republic. They're standing in 10/18 NI seats. Last time, their best result was 4.3% in Foyle.
Lots of anti-imperial nationalisms are left-wing, as with Irish republicanism, pan-Arab nationalism, etc. The Basque ETA were far left.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
UK public opinion would draw a line absolutely at state responsibility for actual deaths by drowning. Indirect stuff and the abominations of the world is how the wicked world goes, and we all know that; but in this country a party could lose an election by kicking a dog, or drowning a child.
Oh yes, of course he hasn't a plan. No plan is possible within the limits of law and reality.
So it’s irresistible force v immovable object time
The boat crisis cannot continue because it will only get worse and it will destroy every government that fails to tackle it. Yet every rational method of tackling it that might work means doing something morally or politically intolerable for many many people
Something will give. I cannot be sure but I believe we will see a Rwanda system - because other European countries will do this and that will give starmer cover. They will of course tweak it and rename it
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
I’ve been predicting it as a Tory hold but ‘comfortable’ it isn’t. You have 4 parties separated by less than 9%!
And ‘all those votes going back to the blue team’ is yet another bit of party politicking. Sigh.
I really hope on July 4th this site won’t be affected by misinformation. It seems to happen every time for market manipulation.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
I think the LDs might win this. They're the traditional challenger to the Tories in the seat.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
I think that ultimately the west will end up revisiting "what is a refugee". It seemed so clear in 1945. Arguably it still is, but its now so widely open to abuse. If you can get to the UK and 'lose your papers' you can claim anything, and how can it be disproven?
And you know - in many ways a thriving confident country would want you, motivated people to come and boost the country. The ones who take the risks are trying to better themselves. They are not coming for the benefits, they are coming to earn money and live a better life. For sure we need to ensure that those that come understand that the UK is a tolerant society and has little truck with ancient religions. Come to the UK we expect you to want to fit in, and most do.
Yes. Note how - in the end, faced with political reality - Biden has overturned the immediate right to asylum
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
Hypothetically, how many people would you be prepared to kill before concluding your plan wasn't working ?
Hypothetically, how many people are you happy to kill by allowing them to cross the channel and drown - before you accept that Yes, we actually have to stop this?
.. Jenkins has suggested this morning he didn't understand he was being put forward as an expert witness - and as such, didn't appreciate the serious legal obligations expert witnesses have when giving evidence in court. They include being independent and working to help the court, not the prosecution or defence. Jenkins is shown a document setting out the responsibilities of an expert witness and accepts he would have read it at the time. But he says its significance would not have struck a chord with him because he didn't understand he was viewed as an expert witness. Inquiry counsel Jason Beer asks if it would have occurred to him then that he may have had extra responsibilities. "It maybe should have done but it didn't," Jenkins replies..
When a party is heading for a majority of 264 seats with 39.5% of the vote, as Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting, you know they must be distributing their vote very efficiently.
Labour aren't really distributing any votes. It's more that their opponents are splitting their votes very effectively.
Yup. The biggest factor is the RefCon split, and there's not very much Starmer can do about that.
(I'm not sure that there's much Reform or the Conservatives can do about it either in the short term, but hey ho.)
So Starmer might as well get on with governing well. And the 100 or so flukiest Labour MPs had best enjoy the ride.
It's good for SKS, I think. If he gets (say) a 250 majority he can mentally split it into 2 parts. A core majority of 150 and a dispensable frothy add-on of another 100. Rather like a pint of bitter with a big head on it. The 'head' he can use when spending political capital on the tough 'to govern is to choose' decisions he will need to take if he is to be a radical reforming PM in the progressive tradition. Normally a PM would have to be spending some of their real and actual majority when doing the hard controversial stuff. They'd be drinking their beer as it were. But Starmer can just pour away the head. He won't need to touch his ale until all of that has gone. Very nice position to be in.
And I think Starmer is going to need all the help he can get because the hand he's been dealt with when he enters Number 10 is just about the worst hand possible - seemingly with a few cards that aren't even part of the game..
I think he's inheriting a great political legacy and a terrible economic one. How long will it take for the second to destroy the first? That is the question. He's well placed for 2 terms, imo, but it's hard (and largely pointless) to predict out that far. I don't see Labour stuffing up to anything like the extent the Cons have since 2016 (and esp these last couple of years), in fact I expect them to govern well, but global events/factors tend to be more influential on us than the actions of our domestic governments, and we have no idea what they will be.
A great political legacy? Have you become a Brexit convert?
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
Well if you're looking for the sort of pungent 'Jim Davidson on a roll' gaggery that's guaranteed to crease up the punters in the Dog'n'Whistle you know where your vote should be going. To Nige and Reform.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
Well if you're looking for the sort of pungent 'Jim Davidson on a roll' gaggery that's guaranteed to crease up the punters in the Dog'n'Whistle you know where your vote should be going. To Nige and Reform.
Promise me you'll follow your heart and do that.
Starmer is a fucking freak but he’s still getting my vote
First sign of putin effect? Or just Margin of error stuff?
Farage blew it with his Putin comments.
Not exactly blew it, but put a ceiling on his success.
20% was very possible before. I wonder why he made such a stupid mistake.
Farage was showing signs that he believed he was politically invincible. All the 'wait till I've finished with Labour' stuff suggests he thinks he's some kind of superman. (I'm guessing he got this from Trump.)
And ex-public schoolboy over-confidence. Which is a repeating pattern within our political class in recent years.
My picture of the day (indeed, week)! My Vote Compass results for Northern Ireland.
Interesting chart - who do you vote for if you are a socialist Unionist, or a right-wing Nationalist?
(And why are Irish nationalists left wing? In most other places nationalism is firmly right wing).
The Progressive Unionist Party is unionist and left-wing, and has 1 councillor. But they're not standing in the general election and also very paramilitary associated! Some in the Labour Party are keen to stand in Northern Ireland, and they did, I believe, in 2016, but don't currently. There is the breakaway Cross-Community Labour Alternative standing in 1 seat, but I'm unclear on their position on the union.
Aontú are socially conservative nationalists. They have had representation in NI previously, but don't at present. They do have representation in the Republic. They're standing in 10/18 NI seats. Last time, their best result was 4.3% in Foyle.
Lots of anti-imperial nationalisms are left-wing, as with Irish republicanism, pan-Arab nationalism, etc. The Basque ETA were far left.
Thank you - interesting.
I know there used to be a 'NI Labour' way back in the mists of time but the electorates in NI seem to have polarised in their politics as much as in their community allegiances. I suppose the Nationalists were generally poorer, so the left dominated naturally, and the reverse for the unionists.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
When a party is heading for a majority of 264 seats with 39.5% of the vote, as Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting, you know they must be distributing their vote very efficiently.
Labour aren't really distributing any votes. It's more that their opponents are splitting their votes very effectively.
Yup. The biggest factor is the RefCon split, and there's not very much Starmer can do about that.
(I'm not sure that there's much Reform or the Conservatives can do about it either in the short term, but hey ho.)
So Starmer might as well get on with governing well. And the 100 or so flukiest Labour MPs had best enjoy the ride.
It's good for SKS, I think. If he gets (say) a 250 majority he can mentally split it into 2 parts. A core majority of 150 and a dispensable frothy add-on of another 100. Rather like a pint of bitter with a big head on it. The 'head' he can use when spending political capital on the tough 'to govern is to choose' decisions he will need to take if he is to be a radical reforming PM in the progressive tradition. Normally a PM would have to be spending some of their real and actual majority when doing the hard controversial stuff. They'd be drinking their beer as it were. But Starmer can just pour away the head. He won't need to touch his ale until all of that has gone. Very nice position to be in.
And I think Starmer is going to need all the help he can get because the hand he's been dealt with when he enters Number 10 is just about the worst hand possible - seemingly with a few cards that aren't even part of the game..
I think he's inheriting a great political legacy and a terrible economic one. How long will it take for the second to destroy the first? That is the question. He's well placed for 2 terms, imo, but it's hard (and largely pointless) to predict out that far. I don't see Labour stuffing up to anything like the extent the Cons have since 2016 (and esp these last couple of years), in fact I expect them to govern well, but global events/factors tend to be more influential on us than the actions of our domestic governments, and we have no idea what they will be.
A great political legacy? Have you become a Brexit convert?
I think kinabalu means a lot of momentum coming in, with everyone desperate for change. So a bad political situation for Tories = good one for Labour. If the Tories were handing over a great political situation, we wouldn't be looking at an historic landslide lol
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
I think that ultimately the west will end up revisiting "what is a refugee". It seemed so clear in 1945. Arguably it still is, but its now so widely open to abuse. If you can get to the UK and 'lose your papers' you can claim anything, and how can it be disproven?
And you know - in many ways a thriving confident country would want you, motivated people to come and boost the country. The ones who take the risks are trying to better themselves. They are not coming for the benefits, they are coming to earn money and live a better life. For sure we need to ensure that those that come understand that the UK is a tolerant society and has little truck with ancient religions. Come to the UK we expect you to want to fit in, and most do.
Most people claiming asylum in the UK are not fakers who 'lose their papers'. Some people abuse the system, but that's true of any system.
We should be perfectly able to make sensible judgements about who warrants asylum and who does not. We could then deport those who do not, while those who do can start integrating into the UK and giving back to the economy. Instead, the Tories deliberately went for a massive backlog, during which time people are forced to sit around while we pay for them. Deportation rates have collapsed.
The numbers the UK faces are small compared to other parts of Europe or the US, and small compared to immigration into the UK from other sources.
Reposting from the last thread my suggested solution to the problems of the law on computer evidence -
Make failure to disclose exculpatory evidence a strict liability offence (as with eg breaches of health and safety regs), punishable by fines, and criminal prosecutions in the most egregious cases.
It would make prosecutors a great deal more scrupulous about discharging their legal responsibilities.
An easy win, offered free to the next Labour Justice Secretary.
(The alternative is spending years trying to come up with a fairer rule that's also practical.)
Or you use the Scottish approach that Computer Evidence is not by itself enough....
Disclosure has long been a problem in other cases not involving computer evidence, of course.
A mixture of tow back and Rwanda
Rwanda would certainly be more of a practical deterrent to rogue prosecutors than it's likely to be to asylum seekers. But where were you proposing to tow prosecutors back to ?
If Dominic Raab were still in government he would be planning to tow them to Rwanda.
In all seriousness someone should tell starmer to just give up on humour. It’s not him. He’s desperately bad at it to a pathological extent
He should lean in to his boringness. So he’s boring. So what. Just be competent and don’t go on tv too much. Don’t do chat shows. We will cope. We had a genuinely funny and rizzy PM in Boris and that didn’t pan out so good
This also confirms that Starmer didn’t “laugh his pretty wife into bed”. So it must have been *something else*
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
Its true - its really hard to gauge. We're having a very good campaign, but just how many votes that translates into, and more pertinently where they fall, thats not an easy question to answer.
I'm quite confident about points 1 and 2 - the SNP campaign lurches from scandal to scandal and the ear to the ground picks up all these deeply unhappy nat last time voters who have stopped saying independence is everything.
Not sure about a higher % than Reform. I expect this to be pretty high. But that doesn't affect 4,5 or 6 because UNS isn't a thing.
Honestly, who knows. Aside from "a Labour landslide" I have no idea what the exit poll will say.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
I’ve been predicting it as a Tory hold but ‘comfortable’ it isn’t. You have 4 parties separated by less than 9%!
And ‘all those votes going back to the blue team’ is yet another bit of party politicking. Sigh.
I really hope on July 4th this site won’t be affected by misinformation. It seems to happen every time for market manipulation.
And what party politicking would that be? I think Reform is overpolled based on election results. That's not a partisan position.
I think the US stock market is a bit like British housing. Always looking overvalued, but probably indestructible as a long term bet within our lifetimes.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
Jenkins saying very clearly that he had absolutely no idea of any legal responsibilities on him as an expert witness.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot. And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
Having defended SKS over the Taylor Swift story this morning, I must admit this is indeed cringe.
Also evidence that Lab have been poaching people from CCHQ - why would you ever let your leader be filmed with, inevitably, bored normal teenagers in the background? They're lucky no one was doing bunny ears.
ETA: But dull is priced in. This isn't going to hurt him, not least given he's up against Sunak and Davey!
A lot of gains being realised I imagine. Lots of talk when it became No 1 company about a bubble and then loads of publicity, much more than before that milestone, will have spooked people on nice gains.
People still around the market experienced the tech bubble so hopefully more cautious. I remember the head of marketing for one of the top tech funds walking in during the tech bubble to give a fund update to our floor and telling us it was probably time to start selling or taking the gains as the IFAs had started buying it (we had provided most of the early investment so they were v friendly). I’m sure there are IFAs telling their clients about this wonder stock Nvidia this week…
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
I think your number two is the one that really matters. Become part of the weekly news cycle again and build something for next time.
And with his newfound stunt based approach to politics, Davey could ask his PMQs whilst juggling to liven them up.
He could install a baptismal pool in St. Mary Undercroft and invite all the other party leaders to join him in it.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
The Labour candidate for Newton Abbot is a 20 year old student, who I believe is doing his finals at Durham University now (although I think he's local to Devon in terms of upbringing) whereas the Lib Dem candidate is Leader of the local Council... which has zero Labour councillors. That, plus it having been Lib Dem relatively recently, play into the tactical case.
No doubt Labour will point to a rather odd MRP, but I really don't expect there to be tactical confusion to a large degree in Newton Abbot.
I think the US stock market is a bit like British housing. Always looking overvalued, but probably indestructible as a long term bet within our lifetimes.
Jenkins saying very clearly that he had absolutely no idea of any legal responsibilities on him as an expert witness.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot. And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
I'm definitely going with idiot. Useful idiot.
He might also be a liar, but that isn't proven yet.
Help: does anyone have the constituency links for the Focaldata? I can’t find it anywhere. Just one coloured map which doesn’t even have the constituencies as pop-ups.
Go to their Website. Click the blog link, open it and halfway down the post is a link to the results
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2% Lab 23.9% LibDem 20.3% Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But please cut the LD party politicking nonsense. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
Looks like a comfortable Tory hold. Reform ain't getting 20% there, and those votes are all going back to the blue team. This will be an example of coming through the middle because of tactical voting confusion.
I’ve been predicting it as a Tory hold but ‘comfortable’ it isn’t. You have 4 parties separated by less than 9%!
And ‘all those votes going back to the blue team’ is yet another bit of party politicking. Sigh.
I really hope on July 4th this site won’t be affected by misinformation. It seems to happen every time for market manipulation.
And what party politicking would that be? I think Reform is overpolled based on election results. That's not a partisan position.
If anything based on your other posts it's an LD pessimist speaking not a Con ramper!
Jenkins saying very clearly that he had absolutely no idea of any legal responsibilities on him as an expert witness.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot. And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
Given the number of shares sold recently by its directors it was always on the cards, or had a strong chance. If they’re profit taking why won’t other investors.
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance) 2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations) 3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough) 4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting) 5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%) 6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
Its true - its really hard to gauge. We're having a very good campaign, but just how many votes that translates into, and more pertinently where they fall, thats not an easy question to answer.
I'm quite confident about points 1 and 2 - the SNP campaign lurches from scandal to scandal and the ear to the ground picks up all these deeply unhappy nat last time voters who have stopped saying independence is everything.
Not sure about a higher % than Reform. I expect this to be pretty high. But that doesn't affect 4,5 or 6 because UNS isn't a thing.
Honestly, who knows. Aside from "a Labour landslide" I have no idea what the exit poll will say.
Ed Davey comes across well when interviewed. Even when the Post Office is mentioned. More human, than Starmer or Sunak, although the former is improving.
As I’ve posted before, my heart is telling me LibDem, my head Labour.
Anecdata: colleague (politically engaged, has been following election news, anti-Tory) told me earlier "I've had enough of the election now. It's been going on too long. Just get it over with. Everyone's focused on the football now".
That's a problem for Tories hoping for swingback. How many people are examining their pained consciences ahead of next Thursday and awaiting the final head to head debate with bated breath before they make their final decision? I would contend very few. How many already have election fatigue?
Also a signifier of low turnout, if it's universal.
It does seem long, I had to look up when the law changed from 17 to 25 working days. It was 2013 but 15 17 and 19 didn't seem so long somehow and that's even allowing for this time of year with so much else on.
Jenkins saying very clearly that he had absolutely no idea of any legal responsibilities on him as an expert witness.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot. And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
Ludicrous. No way an expert witness wouldn't know he was supposed to tell the truth.
In all seriousness someone should tell starmer to just give up on humour. It’s not him. He’s desperately bad at it to a pathological extent
He should lean in to his boringness. So he’s boring. So what. Just be competent and don’t go on tv too much. Don’t do chat shows. We will cope. We had a genuinely funny and rizzy PM in Boris and that didn’t pan out so good
This also confirms that Starmer didn’t “laugh his pretty wife into bed”. So it must have been *something else*
Fortunately for him we have the established archetype in this country thanks to Jane Austin and Helen Fielding.
Jenkins saying very clearly that he had absolutely no idea of any legal responsibilities on him as an expert witness.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot. And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
I'm definitely going with idiot. Useful idiot.
He might also be a liar, but that isn't proven yet.
Can I suggest listening to that interview. I am also amazed people risk their lives to leave a country that is perfectly safe and very pleasant, but of course it isn't as simple as that, as it never is. From memory he left Syria 10 years ago and went to Sweden, married, had children who went to school there, but was then being deported so ran again. I believe he was then threatened with deportation from Belgium and France. So this is why they risk their lives to leave other safe countries.
I don't know what the answer is, but this man lost his daughter as a consequence. People don't take these risks for trivial reasons.
So the man left Syria but was eventually thrown out of Sweden. He then ran to Belgium / france was threatened with Deportation so wanted to escape to the UK...
It's not a trivial reason why he wanted to escape to the UK but he's hardly a valid legitimate asylum seeker if 2 other countries have rejected his claim...
Not the point though is it? He could be a massive murderer for all I know. The point is it naive to say 'But France is safe'. These people have reasons for risking their lives.
It is bonkers to say these things will deter them when everything horrible so far hasn't.
I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't it. People just coming out with simplistic solutions that common sense says won't work.
They may have reasons but are they valid in the sense of a need to claim asylum in the UK? E.g. not speaking French so would prefer to be in England should not be a valid reason.
Everyone seems to be missing the point.
It does not matter whether he has a valid reason for coming here. He probably doesn't. He is just on the run from one country to the next. That is the whole point. Many/most of these people don't.
The whole point of my reply to Leon was it is naively simplistic to just say tow the boats back or say but France is safe. They are risking their lives to come here so they will continue trying. The reasons for doing so are complex.
So saying stuff like tow them back or France is safe might make us feel good but it solves nothing whatsoever does it?
I don't know what the solution is.
There are many issues. I think most people are united that they don't want anyone to risk their lives crossing the channel in a dingy. For some its about avoiding loss of life. For others it about avoiding having to deal with asylum seekers at all. How do you stop it? Starmer has a plan (apparently). Sunak has a stupid plan.
Starmer has absolutely no plan. If you examine his alleged “plan” its just a warmed over version of everything the Tories have tried already - give the French more money, recruit special border police, blah blah blah, all a load of bollocks
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
Why should we be interested in your 'plan' to stop the boats? It's a complex issue and you don't have the knowledge or skillset. Better to stop banging on about it and just wait and see what PM Starmer does. That's what's important. Not long now.
In all seriousness someone should tell starmer to just give up on humour. It’s not him. He’s desperately bad at it to a pathological extent
Did you read the Sunday Times magazine long piece this week? Written by someone who spent 3 months with him. He’s actually got a great patter going: quick witted and funny, and there were examples. Someone I know who has had tea with him said the same.
And describing someone as a ‘freak’ isn’t helpful language.
In all seriousness someone should tell starmer to just give up on humour. It’s not him. He’s desperately bad at it to a pathological extent
He should lean in to his boringness. So he’s boring. So what. Just be competent and don’t go on tv too much. Don’t do chat shows. We will cope. We had a genuinely funny and rizzy PM in Boris and that didn’t pan out so good
This also confirms that Starmer didn’t “laugh his pretty wife into bed”. So it must have been *something else*
I don't at all rule out that a lot of these people are genuinely witty in real life.
But caution is the enemy of humour. If you think about what you're saying too carefully, the moment has gone, and you need to be willing to subvert expectations a bit to get a genuine laugh. So, even if they can do it when they let their hair down, a cautious politician just isn't going to be genuinely amusing in public.
Anecdata: colleague (politically engaged, has been following election news, anti-Tory) told me earlier "I've had enough of the election now. It's been going on too long. Just get it over with. Everyone's focused on the football now".
That's a problem for Tories hoping for swingback. How many people are examining their pained consciences ahead of next Thursday and awaiting the final head to head debate with bated breath before they make their final decision? I would contend very few. How many already have election fatigue?
Also a signifier of low turnout, if it's universal.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
Oh, you wonder if Starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly? That’s adorable. It's like wondering if a fish is going to get wet. The British public don't accidentally elect anyone. They knew exactly what they are doing, just like when they buy a crap sandwich at Pret. And as for looking on in horror let's not pretend we're surprised when the honeymoon phase ends. It’s politics. Not everyone can "surprise on the upside" like you so memorably predicted of Liz Truss.
Let's indulge this fantasy that the British electorate, after all they've recently endured from their elected representatives, are suddenly going to clutch their pearls and swoon into disillusionment the moment Starmer says something. If we’re really going to dive into this alternate universe where voters are a fickle bunch of horrified onlookers, let’s do it right. We’ll need fainting couches on every street corner and smelling salts in every home.
Reading your drivel is like watching a monkey solve a Rubik's cube—entertainingly improbable yet utterly pointless.
Anecdata: colleague (politically engaged, has been following election news, anti-Tory) told me earlier "I've had enough of the election now. It's been going on too long. Just get it over with. Everyone's focused on the football now".
That's a problem for Tories hoping for swingback. How many people are examining their pained consciences ahead of next Thursday and awaiting the final head to head debate with bated breath before they make their final decision? I would contend very few. How many already have election fatigue?
Also a signifier of low turnout, if it's universal.
“Crooked Joe Biden is the WORST debater I have ever faced — He can’t put two sentences together!” Trump wrote on his social media platform on May 15. Two days later, he said in a speech to the Minnesota GOP: “He can’t talk. He can’t walk. Can’t find his way off a stage. Can’t put two sentences together.”
But lately, ahead of the debate Thursday in Atlanta, Trump is singing a different tune, saying he has watched Biden’s vice presidential debate from 2012 and appreciated his rival’s abilities.
“He beat Paul Ryan pretty badly,” Trump said in an interview with the “All-In Podcast” that published Thursday. “And I assume he’s going to be somebody that will be a worthy debater. I would say I don’t want to underestimate him.”..
Comments
Other sorts of democracy are available, but ours is far from the worst. The party with national coverage which is most convincingly centrist is going to win. The votes overall will go overwhelmingly to historically centrist parties. This could be so much worse.
Finally, the outfit that wins 457 seats with under 40% of the vote can lose next time with 43% of the vote. To retain power it has to be better than the rest. We are in charge.
https://x.com/accidentalp/status/1805532258876465155?s=61
EDIT: I think he's also said similar things to Farage on Ukraine.
The buck stops with him.
Maybe, just maybe, going into an election campaign with no credible arguments as to why he should be re-elected and banging on about National Service etc was not a clever idea?
(And why are Irish nationalists left wing? In most other places nationalism is firmly right wing).
The only solutions to this are unpleasant. Tow the boats back AND Rwanda. A double deterrent. People might die but people are dying already and if we succeed we can actually stop the dying
Also this has to be done because global migration movements are going to worsen for the short-medium term future and unless we accept we let in everyone and our entire country changes in a few years then we have to stop them. And if a humane government doesn’t stop them, then an inhumane government will be elected to do the job
A week and a half until the big day and Lib Dems seem to be still completely in the dark as to how it's going to go. This could end up ranging from epoch-making triumph (becoming official opposition) to major let-down, with lots of seats staying blue with split Lib-Lab voting.
What should the objectives be? What constitutes a good night for the party? I would list them from highest priority to aspirational below:
1. Add seats and retain existing ones - if we don't manage this we might as well give up (90%+ chance)
2. Overtake SNP into 3rd in parliament: gives us guaranteed questions in PMQs and more news coverage (60% chance but not a given. I think the SNP will benefit from swingback and unionist tactical unwind, so may well outperform seat expectations)
3. Poll higher in vote share than Reform: important for the message it sends to the post-election Tories, the media, and the voters, though a high Reform share and low seat count may help in the PR fight. (50% chance - I expect Reform vote share to undershoot polling but possibly not by enough)
4. Equal or better the 1997 result (30% chance - a challenge as our vote share is well down from then, so only happens with Tory collapse and a lot of tactical voting)
5. Equal or better 2001-2005, our high water mark in living memory. (20%)
6. Become official opposition (1%. Not going to happen)
https://news.sky.com/story/election-2024-sunak-starmer-conservatives-labour-reform-lib-dem-12593360
This story seems to be rumbling on and on and if you listen to reporters, it’s getting a lot of traction out and about.
Oh yes, of course he hasn't a plan. No plan is possible within the limits of law and reality.
Zig a Sieg Heil
https://x.com/DNCreative/status/1805556783391416462
And with his newfound stunt based approach to politics, Davey could ask his PMQs whilst juggling to liven them up.
That's a problem for Tories hoping for swingback. How many people are examining their pained consciences ahead of next Thursday and awaiting the final head to head debate with bated breath before they make their final decision? I would contend very few. How many already have election fatigue?
Also a signifier of low turnout, if it's universal.
I had to watch that through my fingers and it still hurt. He has that deeply cringe strangulated petit booji toe-tapping @kinabalu voice tone that Clarkson sometimes mimics
What makes him think that is funny? On what planet is that funny? “And then - get this - the dog started barking”
That’s worse than anything Truss did. Entire star systems have collapsed into white dwarfs thanks to cringe force less impactful than that
He’s fucking weird. He doesn’t dream. He refers to himself in the third person. He thinks a dog barking is “funny”. Omfg
I wonder if starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly as people look on in horror at what they accidentally elected
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7Ey3ZcEMWbosicrLKtp6LqiCh2KUUBc
So, for the benefit of @IanB2 and @ClippP that’s another MRP to add to my Newton Abbot list
Focaldata MRP Newton Abbot
Cons 29.2%
Lab 23.9%
LibDem 20.3%
Reform 20.4%
The appearance of Nigel Farage at a rally here yesterday may have dented the Conservatives further.
A real toss-up 4-way marginal with, in theory, Labour best placed challenger to the Conservatives.
I’m not saying the LibDems can’t or won’t win through. But Ian and Clipp please do cut the LD party politicking. This site is better than that and especially for those of us trying to place bets.
If R&W is correct the swing among the 65+ from 2019 would be a whopping 28% - MiC has 16%. The headline swing with MiC is 14.5%, with R&W it's 18%.
Make of that what you will.
And you know - in many ways a thriving confident country would want you, motivated people to come and boost the country. The ones who take the risks are trying to better themselves. They are not coming for the benefits, they are coming to earn money and live a better life. For sure we need to ensure that those that come understand that the UK is a tolerant society and has little truck with ancient religions. Come to the UK we expect you to want to fit in, and most do.
Aontú are socially conservative nationalists. They have had representation in NI previously, but don't at present. They do have representation in the Republic. They're standing in 10/18 NI seats. Last time, their best result was 4.3% in Foyle.
Lots of anti-imperial nationalisms are left-wing, as with Irish republicanism, pan-Arab nationalism, etc. The Basque ETA were far left.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx777w9vgv9o
"Jails to run out of space in days, governors warn"
The boat crisis cannot continue because it will only get worse and it will destroy every government that fails to tackle it. Yet every rational method of tackling it that might work means doing something morally or politically intolerable for many many people
Something will give. I cannot be sure but I believe we will see a Rwanda system - because other European countries will do this and that will give starmer cover. They will of course tweak it and rename it
And ‘all those votes going back to the blue team’ is yet another bit of party politicking. Sigh.
I really hope on July 4th this site won’t be affected by misinformation. It seems to happen every time for market manipulation.
Nvidia has lost close to $550bn (£433bn) in a dramatic tumble since being crowned the world’s most valuable company last week.
Shares in the US tech giant, which has become the poster child of the artificial intelligence revolution, fell by almost 7pc on Monday.
This led to its market value sliding to $2.9 trillion, down 16pc from a peak last Thursday.
Nvidia overtook Microsoft and Apple last week to become the world’s most valuable listed company, with a market value of more than $3.4 trillion.
The slide means the company has fallen behind both Microsoft and Apple, and could raise fears that the frenzy around AI has peaked.
Nvidia’s share price had risen by more than 150pc since the start of the year, sparking concerns about a new bubble fuelled by hype around AI.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/25/nvidia-sell-off-wipes-550bn-off-tech-ai-poster-child/
.. Jenkins has suggested this morning he didn't understand he was being put forward as an expert witness - and as such, didn't appreciate the serious legal obligations expert witnesses have when giving evidence in court.
They include being independent and working to help the court, not the prosecution or defence.
Jenkins is shown a document setting out the responsibilities of an expert witness and accepts he would have read it at the time.
But he says its significance would not have struck a chord with him because he didn't understand he was viewed as an expert witness.
Inquiry counsel Jason Beer asks if it would have occurred to him then that he may have had extra responsibilities.
"It maybe should have done but it didn't," Jenkins replies..
Promise me you'll follow your heart and do that.
I know there used to be a 'NI Labour' way back in the mists of time but the electorates in NI seem to have polarised in their politics as much as in their community allegiances. I suppose the Nationalists were generally poorer, so the left dominated naturally, and the reverse for the unionists.
But people don't necessarily mind weird, or boring. I don't think that in itself is going to cause a collapse in popularity.
Closest agreement with:
Scotland
Alba 87%
SNP 72%
England
Green 65%
Wales
Plaid Cymru 75%
Green 65%
NI
Sinn Fein 64%
Least agreement
Scotland
Reform 26%
England
Reform 31%
Wales
Reform 26%
NI
TUV 42%
Overall, strongly nationalist, but very close to the centre politically.
We should be perfectly able to make sensible judgements about who warrants asylum and who does not. We could then deport those who do not, while those who do can start integrating into the UK and giving back to the economy. Instead, the Tories deliberately went for a massive backlog, during which time people are forced to sit around while we pay for them. Deportation rates have collapsed.
The numbers the UK faces are small compared to other parts of Europe or the US, and small compared to immigration into the UK from other sources.
He should lean in to his boringness. So he’s boring. So what. Just be competent and don’t go on tv too much. Don’t do chat shows. We will cope. We had a genuinely funny and rizzy PM in Boris and that didn’t pan out so good
This also confirms that Starmer didn’t “laugh his pretty wife into bed”. So it must have been *something else*
I'm quite confident about points 1 and 2 - the SNP campaign lurches from scandal to scandal and the ear to the ground picks up all these deeply unhappy nat last time voters who have stopped saying independence is everything.
Not sure about a higher % than Reform. I expect this to be pretty high. But that doesn't affect 4,5 or 6 because UNS isn't a thing.
Honestly, who knows. Aside from "a Labour landslide" I have no idea what the exit poll will say.
Either he's an extremely accomplished liar, or an utter and complete idiot.
And whichever prosecutors that utilised him in the role, over a number of years, must have known which of the two things applies.
Also evidence that Lab have been poaching people from CCHQ - why would you ever let your leader be filmed with, inevitably, bored normal teenagers in the background? They're lucky no one was doing bunny ears.
ETA: But dull is priced in. This isn't going to hurt him, not least given he's up against Sunak and Davey!
People still around the market experienced the tech bubble so hopefully more cautious. I remember the head of marketing for one of the top tech funds walking in during the tech bubble to give a fund update to our floor and telling us it was probably time to start selling or taking the gains as the IFAs had started buying it (we had provided most of the early investment so they were v friendly). I’m sure there are IFAs telling their clients about this wonder stock Nvidia this week…
No one likes cringing every time they see someone on tv. Just be dull. You’re the pm. Dullness is fine
No doubt Labour will point to a rather odd MRP, but I really don't expect there to be tactical confusion to a large degree in Newton Abbot.
He might also be a liar, but that isn't proven yet.
Starmer - boring dad.
Davey - fun uncle.
Farage - drunk uncle.
Sunak - weird cousin.
@Telegraph
📉Cons stablising, Reform UK stalling?
🌹Lab 42 (=)
🌳Con 21 (+2)
➡️Reform 14 (-2)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 5 (=)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
⬜️Other 6 (=)
2,318 UK adults
21-24 June (chg from 19-21 June)
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1805596414677848436?s=19
Angela - fun godmother.
Liz - weird older half-sister
Suella - evil stepmother.
Georgia Meloni - au pair.
As I’ve posted before, my heart is telling me LibDem, my head Labour.
changed from 17 to 25 working days. It was 2013 but 15 17 and 19 didn't seem so long somehow and that's even allowing for this time of year with so much else on.
He could have just sidestepped the question; he walked into an obvious trap
And describing someone as a ‘freak’ isn’t helpful language.
But caution is the enemy of humour. If you think about what you're saying too carefully, the moment has gone, and you need to be willing to subvert expectations a bit to get a genuine laugh. So, even if they can do it when they let their hair down, a cautious politician just isn't going to be genuinely amusing in public.
Oh, you wonder if Starmer is going to become extremely unpopular very quickly? That’s adorable. It's like wondering if a fish is going to get wet. The British public don't accidentally elect anyone. They knew exactly what they are doing, just like when they buy a crap sandwich at Pret. And as for looking on in horror let's not pretend we're surprised when the honeymoon phase ends. It’s politics. Not everyone can "surprise on the upside" like you so memorably predicted of Liz Truss.
Let's indulge this fantasy that the British electorate, after all they've recently endured from their elected representatives, are suddenly going to clutch their pearls and swoon into disillusionment the moment Starmer says something. If we’re really going to dive into this alternate universe where voters are a fickle bunch of horrified onlookers, let’s do it right. We’ll need fainting couches on every street corner and smelling salts in every home.
Reading your drivel is like watching a monkey solve a Rubik's cube—entertainingly improbable yet utterly pointless.
Can he cut the likely Labour majority though in the last week of the campaign?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-changes-tune-biden-skills-debate-expectations-rcna158712
..in six weeks, Donald Trump has gone from mocking President Joe Biden as a feckless debater who can barely speak to praising his talents ahead of their first debate in the 2024 presidential election.
“Crooked Joe Biden is the WORST debater I have ever faced — He can’t put two sentences together!” Trump wrote on his social media platform on May 15. Two days later, he said in a speech to the Minnesota GOP: “He can’t talk. He can’t walk. Can’t find his way off a stage. Can’t put two sentences together.”
But lately, ahead of the debate Thursday in Atlanta, Trump is singing a different tune, saying he has watched Biden’s vice presidential debate from 2012 and appreciated his rival’s abilities.
“He beat Paul Ryan pretty badly,” Trump said in an interview with the “All-In Podcast” that published Thursday. “And I assume he’s going to be somebody that will be a worthy debater. I would say I don’t want to underestimate him.”..