Um that's very interesting but it's like those whacky comedians who walk round Iraq with a fridge freezer or take an ironing board to the south pole, or like politicians trying to live on the minimum wage. You are online anyway. Nobody is going to hack your Betfair app.
I'm not "online" in the sense you mean. I don't have a single app on my phone. I don't do apps. The bank get quite annoyed at this.
I work in information security, and make bank transfers in person at the branch or via an ATM.
Yes it’s annoying for an hour a month, but it’s one hell of a lot less annoying than getting hacked and cleaned out.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
"Kamala Harris worried Democrats will replace Joe Biden with white candidate - Vice president’s team say it would be ‘offensive’ to black voters if she were ignored."
Treating voters as fungible products of their identity rather than as sentient beings who might have their own views on policy leads us to a dark and ridiculous place.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
The fact that this country can't get postal votes shows how much damage the conservatives have done to this country over the past 14 years.
I'm not sure if it can be directly tied to them, but it's part of the general feeling that nothing works very well anymore which hurts them regardless.
It comes down to either local Government money (running the process once to minimise costs) or lack of enforcement of Royal Mail service levels.
Both of those can be easily redirected to issues created by central Government..
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Nick Ferrari believes a lot of things.
It's clearly not a gamechanger, but I do get a sense this week that the game is evolving a bit. Reform are fading, there's a sense of apathy settling over Labour support, and the Tories are finally starting to cut through with their supermajority stuff. Plus they've not had a big disaster for at least a week. People have started to forget the chaos or the crumbling infrastructure. Those loyal but disaffected Tories are finding their excuses to come home.
My original prediction of Con 31% doesn't look so far fetched now.
Caveat: this is the inevitable fear talking. The conservatives are 9 wickets down in the second innings with 100 runs to get and the tailenders have hit a couple of boundaries.
Con 31% is completely far fetched.
If they get to 25% I suspect CCHQ would be very happy.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Just a few days now, and you can get back to telling us why you won't be voting Conservative the next time!
I am sure a few years of the lower middle managers of the Labour Party in charge will disabuse him of that possibility
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Of the 8 Dem alternatives, Newsom is the only straight white male christian? But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
I mean yeah, but how is being a straight white male christian an asset in winning the Dem nomination? Especially when you have some delicate questions to answer about why you're passing over your black female VP...
I guess it depends on who's picking the replacement. I mean it's not as if they will rerun primaries. I imagine some donors quite like him, if they can convince themselves he's got a better chance against Trump than Biden has.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
Other alternatives were also mentioned beyond Whitmer, all polled no better than Biden v Trump apart from Booker by 1%:
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
You can't really compare Biden's polling numbers (versus Trump) against those of a theoretical nominee though. You're just not measuring the same thing.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
What is striking is how well Trump support holds up: 46-48% against anyone, known or unknown. But yes, as I said, plenty of potential to do better (or worse) than Biden.
Hard floor, and hard ceiling for the felon, I think.
No one can really tell how another nominee might do until they're the nominee. Even Harris isn't really a known quantity in that respect.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
"Changing your mind" isn't hypocrisy.
Yep changing your mind is fine. Saying that someone will make a "great PM" and then five years later saying that you didn't really mean it is hypocrisy.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
The one I find mysterious is Newsom. 5% for the nomination on Polymarket.
Polls worse than Biden, higher Trump score so it's not just that he's unknown, no minority that the Dems want to stand up for, comes from California which is the obvious reason to pass over Kamala. Why on earth would the Dems do that? I mean I know he's the only one who's given the impression they're running but the others are ambitious politicians too, it's not like they wouldn't be in the running if there was a vacancy.
Michelle Obama is also a ridiculous idea but I can at least articulate an argument for her.
Of the 8 Dem alternatives, Newsom is the only straight white male christian? But I agree, he'd be a poor choice.
I mean yeah, but how is being a straight white male christian an asset in winning the Dem nomination? Especially when you have some delicate questions to answer about why you're passing over your black female VP...
The crypto bros love a bit of Newsom ramping in the markets.
I think that's right but speaking as a crypto bro I don't understand why? Like I get the Michelle Obama thing, she's kind of a right-wing obsession and also plausibly has star power. Also I understand RFK, he has edgelord appeal and he's a third thing if you don't trust any of the current people who might run the government which is why we made up our own money instead of just using theirs. But Newsom? I don't get it.
Maybe just force of habit from when he looked like he might run against Biden?
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
On the subject of student loans adding 9% to tax, I looked up my first year of paying PAYE in 1988. 25% basic rate and personal allowance of £2605, so probably paying a higher percentage of income tax than a fresh graduate now with a student loan.
1985 33% salary of under £5k for my first full time job. Allowance about £2k and 33% income tax on the rest.
What country was that in?
The UK basic rate was 29% in 1985.
30% (according to link)
Don't know where I got 33% from, but then it was 39 years ago.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
A post from Wimbledon via ConHome, which is pithy and to the point:
Wimbledon - wealthy, professional, ethnically diverse, and some of the highest real estate in the UK - is awash with Liberal Democrat posters. You could spend all day playing spot the Tory poster, and lose. Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat is all you see in this constituency awash with serious money. Not just second-home-is-normal money, I mean serious international top-flight wealth.
Incredible to think that in that mix, the Conservatives have no visibility. It should be the natural home for the party of pragmatism, stability, law and business.
But after the lunacy of Brexit, the amateur-hour policy making, the profoundly anti-business posture, the xenophobic rabble rousing, to any Londoner with half a bonce, the Tories are now the party of resentful, old, rural dwellers whose main concern is sticking it to an immigrant and retreating into last century. No sophisticated global city is going to buy into that hokum.
The supreme court has ruled this morning that water companies can be sued under common law for nuisance or tresspass for pollution from waste water overflows.
The Friday night dinner thing is and will be fine while Lab is on its honeymoon, important to have a balanced person as PM, etc. As soon as/if things turn then he will be castigated for it, lazy good for nothing fiddling while Rome burns, etc.
Also I have no doubt it is not true but he has to shore up his Jewish wing which is presumably still smarting from the Jezza era.
I believe the polls in this election have not been correct. We will find out on Friday.
The unusual choices the voters are making must be making life hard for them.
Would account for the lack of herding.
We will know either way when Sunderland South comes in
Sunderland South is hardly representative of all the other seats.
I'd say we won't really know until we start seeing a few LD target seats too: Harrogate & Knaresborough at c. 01:45, maybe not until Cheltenham and Eastleigh around 03:00.
Do people not think the exit poll will give at least a rough idea of which category the result is in?
Well quite. MrEd/MisterBedfordshire is weirdo Trumpian trollcaster who knows very little about psephology. Hence his now legendary ‘tip’ for Trump to carry VA in Potus 2020, which Trump lost by 11 points.
I'm not Mr Ed. I stopped posting in 2016 until recently
I also don't go round insulting other posters.
Insulting other posters including me because you disagree with their posts says more about you than you intended to reveal.
Happy to take you word for it but your posts are uncannily similar to his and then there's the MrEd/MisterBedfordshire name similarity.
Still remember enjoying a good few beers with Mr Ed at the last PB gathering, shame he got himself banned.
@mrbedfordshire didn't work and has zilch posts because google (gmail) blocked @rcs1000 email message in response to registration to verify the email address because it came from Vanilla not @rcs1000 so googles spoofing klaxons went off (@paul.... had similar problems after the interregnum since 2016)
So @misterbedfordshire came into existence via a non gmail email which didn't block the please verify email address message.
If you are registered here with a gmail address and you need vanilla to send a message to it for any reason (like you forgot your password) you is stuffed.
Ain't life grand.
also Mr Ed would never willingly get on a bus. I'm buying it.
The view that "Buses are for poor people" boils my pee
A lovely surprise this morning to find myself in agreement with you on something.
I take buses loads. They’re a great way to see the world, both outside and inside the windows.
Top deck on a rural double decker bus is fantastic. Especially at this time of year
Buses are the simplest and cheapest way to take some heat out of the housing market. Make city centres more accessible from the towns, villages and suburbs so you don't have to scrap it out for a walking-distance flat.
The big game changer, especially for rural and lesser used suburban routes where buses run less frequently, sometimes only every 2-3 hours, is the satellite tracker.
Now you can sit at home or wherever and track the bus on a map in comfort, going to the stop when it is a few minutes away.
The days of waiting ages in the wind and rain for buses that don't turn up are OVER. But sadly too few people know about this.
If you have not got this website saved on your phone, do it and get it.
Interesting. If I hadn't wasted my daily pic on that 'Sunak sleeping' ad I'd do a screen shot of North Dorset on the map. Not a single bus to be seen.
"We’re aware of a problem with an important data feed affecting some operators’ bus tracking in England. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Sorry for the inconvenience caused."
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
It could be made affordable if you did a combination of two things.
1. Taxed pension income fairly, by merging income tax and national insurance 2. Modified the pension age appropriately so that the ratio of the working age population to pension-age population was kept under control.
I think that a higher state pension age, and higher tax on pension income, is a better way of controlling the expense of the state pension, than pushing pensioners who do not have a private pension into poverty by eroding the value of the state pension.
Obviously, if Britain managed to crack the productivity problem, then the country could choose to spend some of its increased wealth on longer and more comfortable retirements.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
If there is anything in it, it would be a great betting tip. Candidates are, however, the very last people to trust for a steer when the election is just a few days away. All you can do is try and diagnose those suffering from irrational optimism (the majority) from those suffering from pre-polling day panic.
Um that's very interesting but it's like those whacky comedians who walk round Iraq with a fridge freezer or take an ironing board to the south pole, or like politicians trying to live on the minimum wage. You are online anyway. Nobody is going to hack your Betfair app.
I'm not "online" in the sense you mean. I don't have a single app on my phone. I don't do apps. The bank get quite annoyed at this.
I loved your article viewcode. I find it heroic that you persist in doing things the way you've always done. Even to the extent of taking a taxi into town for your gambling, which must make profitability on the exercise significantly more difficult to achieve. (And after printing off the odds from the web. Brilliant.)
FWIW, I'm not quite the refusenik that you are, but I also refuse as much as possible to use apps on phones (and especially banking). I have, essentially, one piece of software on my laptop which I use: a web browser. Pretty much everything that I want to do can be done through that. Why should I need to install a separate piece of software every time I want to interact with some company or organisation using my phone? At the very least, this makes porting over to the next phone a massive PITA. More darkly, why would I want to install dozens of pieces of software the functionality of which I don't fully understand on a device which knows exactly where I am at any given time and (for most people, who allow it to know such things) what I look like? And to go through all my mails and messages? How have we cheerfully acceded to this as the norm? In what world can this be sane? The modern world is absolutely chuffing ridiculous.
The Friday night dinner thing is and will be fine while Lab is on its honeymoon, important to have a balanced person as PM, etc. As soon as/if things turn then he will be castigated for it, lazy good for nothing fiddling while Rome burns, etc.
Also I have no doubt it is not true but he has to shore up his Jewish wing which is presumably still smarting from the Jezza era.
Yep, it won't be long before everyone realises that Starmer will say and do anything to get elected and to stay in power. His legal training has simply prepared him to be a much more convincing liar than Bozo.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Which of the points do you believe, not what Ferrari believes, you?
(And aren't most postal voters old Tories, not that that excuses the fiasco...)
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Can't see how a postal vote fiasco helps the Tories, don't postal votes tend to be relatively Tory dominated ?
In Scotland, school hols began last week so a lot of parents etc will be away either for the election or now (so unable to sort out the mess in time). So younger and more likely to vote non-Tory. The oldies will be more likely to be at home at this time (take hols during term time) and can sort it out or attend in person.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
I would expect being PM will, or should, mean working longer and harder the the average person, and that their family life would take a hit. They have to put the national interest first after all, it's why they given the power the are, so I don't think that's unreasonable.
But it's a big step from that to pillorying the guy because, if it's possible, he will plan to book some family time in. I'm sure they cam reach him if it's urgent, just as they can when a PM goes on holiday.
I believe the polls in this election have not been correct. We will find out on Friday.
The unusual choices the voters are making must be making life hard for them.
Would account for the lack of herding.
We will know either way when Sunderland South comes in
Sunderland South is hardly representative of all the other seats.
I'd say we won't really know until we start seeing a few LD target seats too: Harrogate & Knaresborough at c. 01:45, maybe not until Cheltenham and Eastleigh around 03:00.
Do people not think the exit poll will give at least a rough idea of which category the result is in?
Well quite. MrEd/MisterBedfordshire is weirdo Trumpian trollcaster who knows very little about psephology. Hence his now legendary ‘tip’ for Trump to carry VA in Potus 2020, which Trump lost by 11 points.
I'm not Mr Ed. I stopped posting in 2016 until recently
I also don't go round insulting other posters.
Insulting other posters including me because you disagree with their posts says more about you than you intended to reveal.
Happy to take you word for it but your posts are uncannily similar to his and then there's the MrEd/MisterBedfordshire name similarity.
Still remember enjoying a good few beers with Mr Ed at the last PB gathering, shame he got himself banned.
@mrbedfordshire didn't work and has zilch posts because google (gmail) blocked @rcs1000 email message in response to registration to verify the email address because it came from Vanilla not @rcs1000 so googles spoofing klaxons went off (@paul.... had similar problems after the interregnum since 2016)
So @misterbedfordshire came into existence via a non gmail email which didn't block the please verify email address message.
If you are registered here with a gmail address and you need vanilla to send a message to it for any reason (like you forgot your password) you is stuffed.
Ain't life grand.
also Mr Ed would never willingly get on a bus. I'm buying it.
The view that "Buses are for poor people" boils my pee
A lovely surprise this morning to find myself in agreement with you on something.
I take buses loads. They’re a great way to see the world, both outside and inside the windows.
Top deck on a rural double decker bus is fantastic. Especially at this time of year
Buses are the simplest and cheapest way to take some heat out of the housing market. Make city centres more accessible from the towns, villages and suburbs so you don't have to scrap it out for a walking-distance flat.
The big game changer, especially for rural and lesser used suburban routes where buses run less frequently, sometimes only every 2-3 hours, is the satellite tracker.
Now you can sit at home or wherever and track the bus on a map in comfort, going to the stop when it is a few minutes away.
The days of waiting ages in the wind and rain for buses that don't turn up are OVER. But sadly too few people know about this.
If you have not got this website saved on your phone, do it and get it.
Interesting. If I hadn't wasted my daily pic on that 'Sunak sleeping' ad I'd do a screen shot of North Dorset on the map. Not a single bus to be seen.
"We’re aware of a problem with an important data feed affecting some operators’ bus tracking in England. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Sorry for the inconvenience caused."
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
I thought I was being reasonable. I did start by saying I sort of understood BigG's position, but then set out why I think it's inconsistent with his previous posts. BigG responded in a typically polite and thoughtful way, and I'm confident he's not been seriously upset by someone as inconsequential as me.
Someone called me the c-word in an enjoyably vicious debate a few weeks ago. I don't remember the howls of outrage then, but I don't expect others to jump in on my behalf. If the mods want me to tiptoe more carefully then I will do.
I usually take a good wodge of cash abroad, mainly USD. It was near-useless in Norway but it still comes in very handy in parts of Asia. I enjoy being able to exchange in little booths at good rates without any questions or need to show ID. And it’s great what you can achieve by flashing a greenback.
All part of my anarchistic streak I guess.
I believe the Paignton to Teignmouth bus (£2, top deck) is known for its anarchists. Whereas the crazy golf in Dawlish is where the FARC guerrillas hang out
Oh god. Don’t get me started on Dawlish.
Whenever the train is out I would have to take the Exeter to Teignmouth bus through Dawlish. The number of fights I’ve seen break out on board had to be seen to be believed. Even my socialism has its limits.
It needs a damn great storm to shut it for a couple of months again so they reopen the whole of the proper route via Okehampton.
Bere Alston to Tavistock is allegedly funded to reopen now by HS2 cancellation, leaving, post Okehampton reopening, just a 17 mile gap in the middle that is mostly virtually intact, other than the thorny issue of the Cassandra Crossing (Meldon Viaduct).
A post from Wimbledon via ConHome, which is pithy and to the point:
Wimbledon - wealthy, professional, ethnically diverse, and some of the highest real estate in the UK - is awash with Liberal Democrat posters. You could spend all day playing spot the Tory poster, and lose. Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat is all you see in this constituency awash with serious money. Not just second-home-is-normal money, I mean serious international top-flight wealth.
Incredible to think that in that mix, the Conservatives have no visibility. It should be the natural home for the party of pragmatism, stability, law and business.
But after the lunacy of Brexit, the amateur-hour policy making, the profoundly anti-business posture, the xenophobic rabble rousing, to any Londoner with half a bonce, the Tories are now the party of resentful, old, rural dwellers whose main concern is sticking it to an immigrant and retreating into last century. No sophisticated global city is going to buy into that hokum.
Yougov MRP still has the Tories getting 23% in Wimbledon, ie close to their national score and still a clear second even if the LDs are likely to win comfortably.
The fact the Tories have few posters up and fewer posters up even than Labour and Green supporters doesn't mean they are trailing even behind Labour and the Greens, just wealthy Tories think displaying a poster of their allegiances is a bit common
"Kamala Harris worried Democrats will replace Joe Biden with white candidate - Vice president’s team say it would be ‘offensive’ to black voters if she were ignored."
Treating voters as fungible products of their identity rather than as sentient beings who might have their own views on policy leads us to a dark and ridiculous place.
Isn't this a stupid thing for the Harris team to put out? Show's her in a bad light I think. If she thinks she should be the candidate, make a positive case for it. Now if she does become the candidate, even more of the voters are going to think 'she's only the candidate because she's black'. I was going to say why not give her a chance, but with this kind of misstep already, I think she should be passed over for someone else of whatever skin colour etc.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
You could equally have decided it was important that the Lib Dems beat Reform on votes. Or that Plaid Cymru beat Reform in Wales. But you didn't. Because you're a Tory tribalist. It's not about Reform, it's about finding some reason to justify what you were always going to do anyway.
Basically every single thing you say can be discounted if it can be contradicted with "but you'll vote Tory anyway". Because you will. Your bland handwringing over Tory scandals can be (and in some quarters was) safely disregarded because the conclusion was always going to be same.
Please disregard everything I post and say if you so wish
I will continue to post as honestly as I can as long as I can
Already do, but I hope you don't think that also means I'll stop pointing out hypocrisy
Oh, I guess you won't be voting Starmer then?
Correct, I won't be
After a strong start of controversies I'm disappointed your constituency still has any viable candidates left. I was imagining a scenario where all parties disavowed their candidates.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
That would imply LDs doing better than expected, Labour worse.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I think that is highly unlikely and a huge majority for Labour still looks most likely. If they underperform I shall spend a lot of time giggling at all the Labour tribalists though. Sadly I am not expecting to get that pleasure. It is going to be a Labour landslide, and hypocrite Starmer will not need US Presidential powers to do what the feck he likes.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
It could be made affordable if you did a combination of two things.
1. Taxed pension income fairly, by merging income tax and national insurance 2. Modified the pension age appropriately so that the ratio of the working age population to pension-age population was kept under control.
I think that a higher state pension age, and higher tax on pension income, is a better way of controlling the expense of the state pension, than pushing pensioners who do not have a private pension into poverty by eroding the value of the state pension.
Obviously, if Britain managed to crack the productivity problem, then the country could choose to spend some of its increased wealth on longer and more comfortable retirements.
Reasonable points but a single inflation lock (as used for other benefits) would avoid eroding the value of the state pension.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
Other alternatives were also mentioned beyond Whitmer, all polled no better than Biden v Trump apart from Booker by 1%:
I quite like that start point for Harris. There's 4 or 5 points there for the taking in a smart articulate energetic campaign with a focus on holding Trump accountable.
The Friday night dinner thing is and will be fine while Lab is on its honeymoon, important to have a balanced person as PM, etc. As soon as/if things turn then he will be castigated for it, lazy good for nothing fiddling while Rome burns, etc.
Also I have no doubt it is not true but he has to shore up his Jewish wing which is presumably still smarting from the Jezza era.
Yep, it won't be long before everyone realises that Starmer will say and do anything to get elected and to stay in power. His legal training has simply prepared him to be a much more convincing liar than Bozo.
So he should make it to the end of the next parliament at least.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
The retired. Get them into the fields under Comrade Clarkson.
Thanks to Viewcode for another interesting header. I've noticed the same thing. Most people who work in betting shops these days don't seem to have a clue about any of the bets available in their shop, or what isn't available, whereas I'm sure that 10 years ago they often did.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
It could be made affordable if you did a combination of two things.
1. Taxed pension income fairly, by merging income tax and national insurance 2. Modified the pension age appropriately so that the ratio of the working age population to pension-age population was kept under control.
I think that a higher state pension age, and higher tax on pension income, is a better way of controlling the expense of the state pension, than pushing pensioners who do not have a private pension into poverty by eroding the value of the state pension.
Obviously, if Britain managed to crack the productivity problem, then the country could choose to spend some of its increased wealth on longer and more comfortable retirements.
Reasonable points but a single inflation lock (as used for other benefits) would avoid eroding the value of the state pension.
When we had pensions linked to inflation it does worse the value of the state pension compared to living standards generally, because it falls behind wages. This is especially important when we have increasing numbers of pensioners in private rentals, bidding against those in work.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
The triple lock costs us nothing unless you say pensions will not have risen without it by the same amount in any given year. In most years, this is not the case.
The triple locks costs us unless it is all years that pensions will have risen the same with it. By your very use of the term most, that is evidently even in your own head not the case.
Pensions should rise by no more and no less than wages. It is wrong that those who are working for a living should see their wages go up by less than those who are not.
The supreme court has ruled this morning that water companies can be sued under common law for nuisance or tresspass for pollution from waste water overflows.
Which means that they wil declare bankruptcy in the end and the taxpayer will then be on the hook for com-pen-say-shun.
Silly Cnuttish legislation has enabled this. Water does what water does. Even the multibillion Thames Tideway tunnel won't stop sewage discharges into the Thames, just reduce the frequency.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
If that happens I won't apologise to you, I'd want you to become PM for such stunning insight.
Not even Rishi is predicting he'll be PM, he's trying to blunt the size of Starmer's majority.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
It could be made affordable if you did a combination of two things.
1. Taxed pension income fairly, by merging income tax and national insurance 2. Modified the pension age appropriately so that the ratio of the working age population to pension-age population was kept under control.
I think that a higher state pension age, and higher tax on pension income, is a better way of controlling the expense of the state pension, than pushing pensioners who do not have a private pension into poverty by eroding the value of the state pension.
Obviously, if Britain managed to crack the productivity problem, then the country could choose to spend some of its increased wealth on longer and more comfortable retirements.
Reasonable points but a single inflation lock (as used for other benefits) would avoid eroding the value of the state pension.
I agree with @LostPassword on this. The economy is losing huge numbers of people in their prime because there is an industry designed to make people think retirement, and therefore lazing around is an aspiration. The tax system could be used to disincentivise people to retire before 70 and ensure those on gold-plated pensions pay their fair share.
[snip] do him the courtesy of taking it at face value [snip]
That's like saying you should treat everything in the Telegraph or the Mirror at face value. Debates are much better when you know the profound ideological or tribal bias of the speaker.
Now listen, Farooq, I like you and find you an amusing poster - and this isn't my fight - and I don't normally result to ad hominems - but I'm riled now. Stop it.
Big G isn't a massive media conglomerate with an agenda. He's a retired policeman from Llandudno. He's just telling you what he thinks at any particular time. You might reasonably think - or even say - "ah, that's just how you feel now, but I think you'll vote Con again at election time." But how he feels isn't down to bias or any sort of agenda he's trying to promote. He's just vocalising the thought processes and changes of heart that thousands of voters do over the course of the electoral cycle. We're getting to see it in real time. Isn't in fascinating? I find your implication that you are somehow morally superior for not doing this puzzling. I'm sure you've changed your mind about who you are going to vote for at one time or another - you've just kept it to yourself. Nothing inherently superior about that. And if you've never changed your mind about who you might vote for - well, that's even more peculiar. Even HYUFD has done that.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
You can't really compare Biden's polling numbers (versus Trump) against those of a theoretical nominee though. You're just not measuring the same thing.
It's almost certain (barring the messiest of struggles to replace him) that the polling numbers of any given alternative to Biden would get a bump once they became the actual nominee.
You can better compare theoretical alternatives to each other - but even then, it's a pretty poor indication of how they might perform on November. Apart from Harris, most aren't particularly well know nationally.
What is striking is how well Trump support holds up: 46-48% against anyone, known or unknown. But yes, as I said, plenty of potential to do better (or worse) than Biden.
Hard floor, and hard ceiling for the felon, I think.
No one can really tell how another nominee might do until they're the nominee. Even Harris isn't really a known quantity in that respect.
I think she could surprise on the up side
I agree. It's also pretty well the only realistic scenario for replacing the nominee without a massive fight.
What might be part of any deal would be the identity of the nominee. And Harris could hardly complain about that, as it's a significant part of why she was picked as VP herself.
How well would a Whitmer/Ossoff ticket poll against Trump?
Newsweek polled Whitmer vs Trump. She does very slightly worse than shit-for-brains Biden against DJT. As does Butteejich and the rest of the usual suspects.
Basically Trump is 2 or 3 points ahead against all the alternatives. BUT apart from Biden and Harris (and RFK Jr), majorities or pluralities say they 'Haven't heard enough to say' if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidate. eg Whitmer 22% favorable 21% unfavorable 56% haven't heard enough to say
So plenty of potential to do much better or worse than Biden. FWIW in Michigan, where people have heard of Whitmer, she polls much better than Biden vs Trump, though there's only been a couple of polls this year.
Other alternatives were also mentioned beyond Whitmer, all polled no better than Biden v Trump apart from Booker by 1%:
I quite like that start point for Harris. There's 4 or 5 points there for the taking in a smart articulate energetic campaign with a focus on holding Trump accountable.
Or even further to fall in the rustbelt swing states only Biden has proved he can win against Trump
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Nonsense on stilts. The polls in 1992 were wrong, but were Labour and the Tories were much much closer. If they are wrong in 2024 by the same amount, Starmer still gets a huge majority.
I usually take a good wodge of cash abroad, mainly USD. It was near-useless in Norway but it still comes in very handy in parts of Asia. I enjoy being able to exchange in little booths at good rates without any questions or need to show ID. And it’s great what you can achieve by flashing a greenback.
All part of my anarchistic streak I guess.
I believe the Paignton to Teignmouth bus (£2, top deck) is known for its anarchists. Whereas the crazy golf in Dawlish is where the FARC guerrillas hang out
Oh god. Don’t get me started on Dawlish.
Whenever the train is out I would have to take the Exeter to Teignmouth bus through Dawlish. The number of fights I’ve seen break out on board had to be seen to be believed. Even my socialism has its limits.
It needs a damn great storm to shut it for a couple of months again so they reopen the whole of the proper route via Okehampton.
Bere Alston to Tavistock is allegedly funded to reopen now by HS2 cancellation, leaving, post Okehampton reopening, just a 17 mile gap in the middle that is mostly virtually intact, other than the thorny issue of the Cassandra Crossing (Meldon Viaduct).
All the former stations are now des reses with gardens on what was the track (but allegedly with a right to repurchase in the deeds) and lydford to Okie is a very popular bike and pedestrian route. There's decades of wrangling to be done and as you say meldon viaduct needs a rebuild
The supreme court has ruled this morning that water companies can be sued under common law for nuisance or tresspass for pollution from waste water overflows.
Which means that they wil declare bankruptcy in the end and the taxpayer will then be on the hook for com-pen-say-shun.
Silly Cnuttish legislation has enabled this. Water does what water does. Even the multibillion Thames Tideway tunnel won't stop sewage discharges into the Thames, just reduce the frequency.
Makes the case for taking them into public ownership much easier to make. Which is a good thing, IMO.
The silly Cnuttish regulator just allowed Thames shareholders to pay themselves a £150m dividend.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
The retired. Get them into the fields under Comrade Clarkson.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
How many of the 2.8 million are on difficult to verify mental health conditions (numbers have exploded since backache got harder to claim on)?
And do the mental health conditions actually make it impossible to work for months or years (obviously some will) and will being stuck at home improve or worsen matters?
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
Reform and the Tories leaflets arrived so I have now had all 6 parties standing, all with just the one each (unless any are planning an election day push)
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Can't see how a postal vote fiasco helps the Tories, don't postal votes tend to be relatively Tory dominated ?
In Scotland, school hols began last week so a lot of parents etc will be away either for the election or now (so unable to sort out the mess in time). So younger and more likely to vote non-Tory. The oldies will be more likely to be at home at this time (take hols during term time) and can sort it out or attend in person.
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
Thanks for providing the breakdown of the figures. All I said was that a 25% non-working rate seemed like a lot. There was no need for you to direct any sarcasm towards me for it.
My wife hasn't been able to work for several years, I had to accept the end of my hopes for more children because we wouldn't be able to afford childcare on my income alone, and it was too much to expect of her to do so in her present condition. I know what the reality of this is like for many people.
But 1-in-4 does still seem like a lot. And less than half the total population in work does seem a bit low. Looking at figures in British history, and for other countries, would help to gain some perspective on this.
That is actually quite an effective ad, warning of energy shortages, tax rises, inflation rises, Rayner leadership bids etc under a Labour government. A US style attack ad.
Looks more Saatchi than the CCHQ intern ads we have had up until now. Won't stop Labour winning but might narrow the gap a bit further
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
I don't see this being 1992. But I do think it possible we could end up with a far smaller Labour majority than has been predicted te last few weeks. Sadly it also means the Tory party will fail to slide down the plughole.
Sadly only in the sense you want Farage to be Leader of the Opposition which most on here don't
No, as I have made absolutely clear on many occasions, I don't want Farage anywhere near the Tory party, or power. I just don't want the Tory party to survive. It will send a powerful message to the other parties and politicians generally if the oldest party in British politics ends up in the sewer.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
If you don't want the Tory party to survive you end up with Farage ultimately LOTO and Reform taking over the Tories, sorry.
Under FPTP you ain't getting another centre right party other than the Tories, certainly not the current LDs
Thanks to Viewcode for another interesting header. I've noticed the same thing. Most people who work in betting shops these days don't seem to have a clue about any of the bets available in their shop, or what isn't available, whereas I'm sure that 10 years ago they often did.
Been a while since I interacted with bookies and the folk that work in them, but at that point the pay, hours and prospects were shit, so not much inducement to learn the nuances of the job. Perhaps things have changed..
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
Which of these three points do you believe?
Ferrari was very excited, he suggested it could change everything.He had a few callers saying Starmer is a lazy barsteward, but most were rinsing Ferrari. Remember Boris Johnson was so dedicated he would brush up on his IT skills at night in bed.
Caulfield said on Sky that she works 20 hours days. Surely she wouldn't lie to us?
I am very concerned by the postal vote fiasco. Here in the Vale of Glamorgan Cairns may survive because anti -Conservative voters will not get their vote.
Can't see how a postal vote fiasco helps the Tories, don't postal votes tend to be relatively Tory dominated ?
In Scotland, school hols began last week so a lot of parents etc will be away either for the election or now (so unable to sort out the mess in time). So younger and more likely to vote non-Tory. The oldies will be more likely to be at home at this time (take hols during term time) and can sort it out or attend in person.
No idea when Welsh school hols are.
22nd July
Thanks. I also forgot that Aberdeenshire etc. has later hols too - so if I understand correctly, the above issues won't affect RP quite so much.
The cut through of this Starmer Friday evening family time story shows to me he has been spot on to run this Ming Vase campaign all along. Anyone complaining that he/Labour have been too ‘safe’ needs only look at how his quotes were blown out of all serious proportion.
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%) 1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%) 1.1 million are retired (11.5%) 1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%) 205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%) 2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
How many of the 2.8 million are on difficult to verify mental health conditions (numbers have exploded since backache got harder to claim on)?
And do the mental health conditions actually make it impossible to work for months or years (obviously some will) and will being stuck at home improve or worsen matters?
That is where the focus needs to be.
I agree. But even if half of those long term sick are capable of returning to work it is still not a huge dent in the Economically Inactive numbers. It helps but not much.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
Big_G's declaration should have prompted nothing beyond a wry smile. The whole j'accuse thing is way OTT.
Anyway, I'm something of an Emersonian.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
I hope they would realise offering voters the moon on a stick is not acceptable either
Oh none of the parties will ever learn that lesson.
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
I believe the polls in this election have not been correct. We will find out on Friday.
The unusual choices the voters are making must be making life hard for them.
Would account for the lack of herding.
We will know either way when Sunderland South comes in
Sunderland South is hardly representative of all the other seats.
I'd say we won't really know until we start seeing a few LD target seats too: Harrogate & Knaresborough at c. 01:45, maybe not until Cheltenham and Eastleigh around 03:00.
Do people not think the exit poll will give at least a rough idea of which category the result is in?
Well quite. MrEd/MisterBedfordshire is weirdo Trumpian trollcaster who knows very little about psephology. Hence his now legendary ‘tip’ for Trump to carry VA in Potus 2020, which Trump lost by 11 points.
I'm not Mr Ed. I stopped posting in 2016 until recently
I also don't go round insulting other posters.
Insulting other posters including me because you disagree with their posts says more about you than you intended to reveal.
Happy to take you word for it but your posts are uncannily similar to his and then there's the MrEd/MisterBedfordshire name similarity.
Still remember enjoying a good few beers with Mr Ed at the last PB gathering, shame he got himself banned.
@mrbedfordshire didn't work and has zilch posts because google (gmail) blocked @rcs1000 email message in response to registration to verify the email address because it came from Vanilla not @rcs1000 so googles spoofing klaxons went off (@paul.... had similar problems after the interregnum since 2016)
So @misterbedfordshire came into existence via a non gmail email which didn't block the please verify email address message.
If you are registered here with a gmail address and you need vanilla to send a message to it for any reason (like you forgot your password) you is stuffed.
Ain't life grand.
also Mr Ed would never willingly get on a bus. I'm buying it.
The view that "Buses are for poor people" boils my pee
A lovely surprise this morning to find myself in agreement with you on something.
I take buses loads. They’re a great way to see the world, both outside and inside the windows.
Top deck on a rural double decker bus is fantastic. Especially at this time of year
Buses are the simplest and cheapest way to take some heat out of the housing market. Make city centres more accessible from the towns, villages and suburbs so you don't have to scrap it out for a walking-distance flat.
The big game changer, especially for rural and lesser used suburban routes where buses run less frequently, sometimes only every 2-3 hours, is the satellite tracker.
Now you can sit at home or wherever and track the bus on a map in comfort, going to the stop when it is a few minutes away.
The days of waiting ages in the wind and rain for buses that don't turn up are OVER. But sadly too few people know about this.
If you have not got this website saved on your phone, do it and get it.
I'd do this if I had the right type of phone, but I've only got one of those old-fashioned ones that do text messages and don't have any plans to change it.
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
The answer is I have no idea but it will depend on many factors and events that are for the future
Since 2019 we have had brexit, covid and war in Ukraine which by any definition are extraordinary in one parliamentary term
They are.
So we should be all in it together.
Instead Rishi wants to freeze tax thresholds for those working for a living, and implement the triple lock plus for those who are not.
No thanks.
And labour have identical policies on these issues
It is not sustainable and dishonest
On Sunday Trevor Phillips said to Pat McFadyen you can talk about growth as much as you like but the one big issue for labour especially is child poverty and you have decided to give a wealthy pensioner like me the triple lock when you could have made the choice with the same budget and decided to pay for the third child and stop the triple lock
And in that one comment Phillips identified everything that is wrong in labour, (we expect the triple lock from the conservatives)
The triple lock is neither here nor there in economic terms, and, depending on which part of the triple lock you think should be dropped, in financial terms either. What should be looked at is the better paid, like Trevor Phillips and Pat McFadyen both, getting higher rate tax relief on their private pension contributions, and also being able to use salary sacrifice to further reduce their income tax burden, in ways that are simply not open to ordinary folk.
That's just financially illiterate. The triple lock is costing us billions of pounds a year and is a one way ratchet that can never be made affordable.
The triple lock costs us nothing unless you say pensions will not have risen without it by the same amount in any given year. In most years, this is not the case.
The triple locks costs us unless it is all years that pensions will have risen the same with it. By your very use of the term most, that is evidently even in your own head not the case.
Pensions should rise by no more and no less than wages. It is wrong that those who are working for a living should see their wages go up by less than those who are not.
[snip] do him the courtesy of taking it at face value [snip]
That's like saying you should treat everything in the Telegraph or the Mirror at face value. Debates are much better when you know the profound ideological or tribal bias of the speaker.
Now listen, Farooq, I like you and find you an amusing poster - and this isn't my fight - and I don't normally result to ad hominems - but I'm riled now. Stop it.
Big G isn't a massive media conglomerate with an agenda. He's a retired policeman from Llandudno. He's just telling you what he thinks at any particular time. You might reasonably think - or even say - "ah, that's just how you feel now, but I think you'll vote Con again at election time." But how he feels isn't down to bias or any sort of agenda he's trying to promote. He's just vocalising the thought processes and changes of heart that thousands of voters do over the course of the electoral cycle. We're getting to see it in real time. Isn't in fascinating? I find your implication that you are somehow morally superior for not doing this puzzling. I'm sure you've changed your mind about who you are going to vote for at one time or another - you've just kept it to yourself. Nothing inherently superior about that. And if you've never changed your mind about who you might vote for - well, that's even more peculiar. Even HYUFD has done that.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
That thing when you remember to say you’ll work with the French National Front..sorry..National Rally but forget to say you’ll be giving 110% for the country at all times.
Nick Ferrari believes Starmer's Friday Night Dinner comment is a game changer.
Maria Caulfield works 20 hours a day, every day.
The postal vote fiasco continues can we postpone the election at the eleventh hour? This really is unfair that 300,000 lose their franchise. Rishi needs to get a grip and sort this out.
What the heck is the Friday Night Dinner comment and why does it matter?
Only reason I know what Friday Night Dinner is, is its on the rotation of images on Netflix when its on screensaver mode.
Never been interested in it, never seen it.
Starmer says he will continue to spend Friday evening meals with his family. A Jewish tradition. Maria Caulfield, Shapps and Rishi are suggesting Starmer is a lazy part timer.
And I'd say good on him. PM needs to be a human being with his family.
Yes, clocking off at 6 on Friday doesn't seem unreasonable. Can't say I'm often still at my desk at that time.
If the family are living in Downing Street it's not like he's too far from the action either.
It is quite likely the Starmer family will spend Friday afternoons pootling up to Chequers for the weekend anyway, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense from either side.
He will get a lot of gyp now though from people asking him who will be running the country from 6pm Friday to Monday morning and people saying “it’s alright for you to clock off at 6 on a Friday, some of us junior doctors work all weekend so give us 35% you bastard” (they won’t actually say this).
The cut through of this Starmer Friday evening family time story shows to me he has been spot on to run this Ming Vase campaign all along. Anyone complaining that he/Labour have been too ‘safe’ needs only look at how his quotes were blown out of all serious proportion.
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
In any case, surely a small-government Tory would think that being PM is a part-time role.
(As indeed it must be, as we expect people to do it in tandem with being an MP and running a political party)
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Technically there is no such thing as a Supermajority in the UK.
A landslide I would say is c. 120+ majority. Some would set the bar a bit lower.
I suspect that this Tory / Daily Mail Supermajority message is cutting through and I’m not too unhappy about it. If it helps defeat @Leon ’s warped worldview then it’s a double win as far as I’m concerned.
There seems to be mixed signals. On one hand "its cutting through" - as I have to presume witnessed by this absurd 48 Hours thing. On the other hand the net of seats to LB attack / Tory defend gets stretched further and further.
It won't people an avalanche of people voting Labour. But they're voting against the Tories. Only a few days to find out if there is a late Tory swingback or not. But lets assume there is, and the "please please no" campaign has "worked" and Labour "only" win a 150 majority
Bit abject isn't it for the Tories? "We successfully avoided getting crushed! We only got beat by a massive landslide! WooHoo!!!!"
I would suggest you may be missing the point that many conservatives look on in disgust at Reform and their stated aim to take over the party and are determined to fight for the one nation conservative cause, but also to have at least a viable opposition and yes including an increased lib dem seat count
I have no idea of Fridays seat totals but disenchantment with all governing parties is at an extreme high, not just here but elsewhere and you only need to witness what is happening in France to be concerned if the centre right is marginalised into irrelevance
No I get it - we don't want Farage.
That is a given, the motivation to salvage as many seats as possible. And *that* is my point. The best case scenario - one the party is now spending its remaining cash pleading for - is to only give Labour a landslide.
How the mighty have fallen. It took Labour over a decade to recover from a badly misguided comedy note channeling Reginald Maudling. How long will it take the Tories to recover from "please don't destroy us, isn't a landslide enough for you?"
I kinda understand BigG's position. But a clearer signal to the Tories to return to the centre would be to vote for the centre. That's the Lib Dems, probably.
I want to address this directly
I was going to vote Lib Dem post Sunak's D day error but it was when Farage entered the fray as leader of Reform that we (my wife and I) made the decision it was correct for us to return to the conservatives as it it far more important to us that the conservatives out vote Reform in votes
Whether that happens I do not know but a vote for the Lib Dems here would have been a wasted vote anyway as labour are going to easily regain the seat
BigG, you've been one of the most emotional and eloquent critics of the Conservative Party over the years I've been lurking and then posting here.
Almost all of our individual votes are worthless in the face of a Labour landslide. Ultimately, the cross you put in the box reflects your values more than anything else. I respect anyone who wholeheartedly votes for the Conservatives or the Greens in this election, even though I think tactical voting adds more value to your vote in some constituencies.
But voting Conservative undermines your moral authority here, and undermines the conservative appeal to someone like me. I want to think that Conservative voters vote on principle, that you espouse values like sound management of economy, tradition, low taxation, personal responsibility, serious governance, investment. That isn't on the table, and hasn't been for some time.
With other options like a reformed Labour and a harmless Lib Dem party available, you don't really have an excuse.
Can I wade in here? Big G doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I'm going to do so anyway.
Firstly, for - what - 20 odd years on here, Big G has been one of the most eloquent, courteous and genial of posters on here. You will search in vain for examples of him being rude to people. But it seems to have become fashionable among some posters to give him a bit of a verbal kicking. Enough with the pile-on, eh? He says what he thinks at any given moment - do him the courtesy of taking it at face value.
Secondly, I can see exactly why someone might make the decisions he says he's making. It's hard to think you'll support a party when they do things in government (or even in opposition) that you disapprove of. "Right, enough", you think - "time to give the other lot a go". And then the election approaches, and you look at what the other lots stand for - and you just can't give them ago. They might be different and less obviously tainted by incompetence or venality, but they're miles from where you are. What's the use of competence if it's used to do things you disapprove of? Like Big G, I voted Con at the last few elections; like Big G I passed the Rubicon and thought: no, not this time. Not this lot. And then I did that political compass test someone posted last week - and I came out pretty much bang on where the Tories are (albeit very slightly up and left from them). I hadn't answered every question with whatever Tory party policy - I bet not even HYUFD did that - but on average, that's exactly where I sit. I have many areas of massive disagreement with Con policy, but far fewer than with that of any other party. It doesn't for me make a Conservative vote any more attractive, but it does make you think - if not them, who? So Big G's journey from Con to not-Con back to Con is perfectly understandable.
And thirdly, there's the tribal element. Which is to say, for example, even though I'm not planning on voting Con this time, to the irrational brain, people giving Big G a hard time, or exulting about how everyone HATES Tories makes me emotionally rather more inclined to vote Tory. It shouldn't matter, but it does. So again, that factor sees people return to where they were last time around.
But basically, be politer to Big G, ok?
Fourthly, everyone knew he'd vote for the Conservatives anyway. No big surprise; no big deal.
What Big G is being punished for is his scrupulous transparency and honesty.
In the modern parlance he’s been on a journey. It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
The cut through of this Starmer Friday evening family time story shows to me he has been spot on to run this Ming Vase campaign all along. Anyone complaining that he/Labour have been too ‘safe’ needs only look at how his quotes were blown out of all serious proportion.
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
It gives off a subliminal vibe of 'nation first, but only during office hours' Or, Police Squad wise 'not one man on this force will rest for one moment until we find the killer' 'right, let's get a spot of lunch'
Snippet from the Independent. Not sure how reliable put thought I'd share.
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
I have been saying 1992 for years. I will apologise on Friday if I am wrong but I demand an apology myself if Rishi remains Prime Minister!
Tories most seat is 230.
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
Relatedly - It’s amusing to me how many people on here often say “X has a >90% chance of happening” - but they’re not interested in taking up any bets of that nature!
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
[snip] do him the courtesy of taking it at face value [snip]
That's like saying you should treat everything in the Telegraph or the Mirror at face value. Debates are much better when you know the profound ideological or tribal bias of the speaker.
Now listen, Farooq, I like you and find you an amusing poster - and this isn't my fight - and I don't normally result to ad hominems - but I'm riled now. Stop it.
Big G isn't a massive media conglomerate with an agenda. He's a retired policeman from Llandudno. He's just telling you what he thinks at any particular time. You might reasonably think - or even say - "ah, that's just how you feel now, but I think you'll vote Con again at election time." But how he feels isn't down to bias or any sort of agenda he's trying to promote. He's just vocalising the thought processes and changes of heart that thousands of voters do over the course of the electoral cycle. We're getting to see it in real time. Isn't in fascinating? I find your implication that you are somehow morally superior for not doing this puzzling. I'm sure you've changed your mind about who you are going to vote for at one time or another - you've just kept it to yourself. Nothing inherently superior about that. And if you've never changed your mind about who you might vote for - well, that's even more peculiar. Even HYUFD has done that.
Thanks for saying that so I don't have to
Was Big G really the heat?
Part of the attraction of PB is that you get called out when you get something wrong or hold a silly position, but not to the extent people feel like they have to leave.
Otherwise BigG would hang out in the Llandudno motorists FB group, and I'd be in the cycle lanes proliferation WhatsApp group. And both all the poorer for it - literally, as I've adjusted my betting position based on BigG's posts!
Pippa Crerar on X even now saying Starmers 'i will be a part time PM' comments are cutting through. As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in. Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Dave had his dvd nights, BJ was a poster boy for laziness.
It's the Jewish angle that I find interesting. On the one hand it wrong foots the critics for not knowing and respecting Jewish practices (I knew when the Sabbath starts because I used to instruct an orthodox barrister and if you wanted advice on a Friday in winter you made sure to ring early). OTOH I am not sure if I knew lady s was Jewish. That fact coming to prominence could do labour harm in Muslim heavy constituencies.
Comments
Yes it’s annoying for an hour a month, but it’s one hell of a lot less annoying than getting hacked and cleaned out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/01/kamala-harris-democrats-replace-joe-biden-black-voters/
"Kamala Harris worried Democrats will replace Joe Biden with white candidate - Vice president’s team say it would be ‘offensive’ to black voters if she were ignored."
Treating voters as fungible products of their identity rather than as sentient beings who might have their own views on policy leads us to a dark and ridiculous place.
Both of those can be easily redirected to issues created by central Government..
If they get to 25% I suspect CCHQ would be very happy.
Trump 48 Harris 45
Trump 47 Newsom 44
Trump 47 Buttigieg 44
Trump 46 Klobuchar 43
Trump 46 Shapiro 43
Trump 46 Pritzker 43
Trump 46 Booker 44
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump
Maybe just force of habit from when he looked like he might run against Biden?
"Lord Hayward’s analysis is supported by feedback from Conservatives in the so-called red wall areas in the North and Midlands.
In the North East, Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who held on in May despite what the polls suggested, told The Independent: “It’s pretty positive. I’m hopeful if our data is right.”
A number of Tory MPs in the North West, Midlands and Yorkshire believe they can hold on, including in one constituency where the bookmakers are quoting 10/1 on a Conservative victory. The polls would suggest they have no chance.
Bassetlaw MP Brendan Clarke-Smith, who thinks his seat is too close to call, has suggested that Reform UK are picking up more Labour voters in his area.
However, the Conservatives are far more gloomy about the south of England – the so-called blue wall of traditionally safe Tory seats – where they expect to suffer significant losses, including potentially a number of cabinet ministers, headed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Surrey.
However, it is understood that Labour is “nervous” about the result, with so many undecided voters."
Morning all
Don't know where I got 33% from, but then it was 39 years ago.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://resource.download.wjec.co.uk/vtc/2015-16/15-16_20/unit7/TaxRates73-90_resource.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiv2r3Kh4iHAxUeVUEAHY4DCswQFnoECDUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0nbgd1MucIDWmhOqhxADWA
Wimbledon - wealthy, professional, ethnically diverse, and some of the highest real estate in the UK - is awash with Liberal Democrat posters. You could spend all day playing spot the Tory poster, and lose. Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat is all you see in this constituency awash with serious money. Not just second-home-is-normal money, I mean serious international top-flight wealth.
Incredible to think that in that mix, the Conservatives have no visibility. It should be the natural home for the party of pragmatism, stability, law and business.
But after the lunacy of Brexit, the amateur-hour policy making, the profoundly anti-business posture, the xenophobic rabble rousing, to any Londoner with half a bonce, the Tories are now the party of resentful, old, rural dwellers whose main concern is sticking it to an immigrant and retreating into last century. No sophisticated global city is going to buy into that hokum.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2024/22/press-summary/1
Also I have no doubt it is not true but he has to shore up his Jewish wing which is presumably still smarting from the Jezza era.
1. Taxed pension income fairly, by merging income tax and national insurance
2. Modified the pension age appropriately so that the ratio of the working age population to pension-age population was kept under control.
I think that a higher state pension age, and higher tax on pension income, is a better way of controlling the expense of the state pension, than pushing pensioners who do not have a private pension into poverty by eroding the value of the state pension.
Obviously, if Britain managed to crack the productivity problem, then the country could choose to spend some of its increased wealth on longer and more comfortable retirements.
FWIW, I'm not quite the refusenik that you are, but I also refuse as much as possible to use apps on phones (and especially banking). I have, essentially, one piece of software on my laptop which I use: a web browser. Pretty much everything that I want to do can be done through that. Why should I need to install a separate piece of software every time I want to interact with some company or organisation using my phone? At the very least, this makes porting over to the next phone a massive PITA. More darkly, why would I want to install dozens of pieces of software the functionality of which I don't fully understand on a device which knows exactly where I am at any given time and (for most people, who allow it to know such things) what I look like? And to go through all my mails and messages? How have we cheerfully acceded to this as the norm? In what world can this be sane? The modern world is absolutely chuffing ridiculous.
(And aren't most postal voters old Tories, not that that excuses the fiasco...)
No idea when Welsh school hols are.
But it's a big step from that to pillorying the guy because, if it's possible, he will plan to book some family time in. I'm sure they cam reach him if it's urgent, just as they can when a PM goes on holiday.
Someone called me the c-word in an enjoyably vicious debate a few weeks ago. I don't remember the howls of outrage then, but I don't expect others to jump in on my behalf. If the mods want me to tiptoe more carefully then I will do.
Bere Alston to Tavistock is allegedly funded to reopen now by HS2 cancellation, leaving, post Okehampton reopening, just a 17 mile gap in the middle that is mostly virtually intact, other than the thorny issue of the Cassandra Crossing (Meldon Viaduct).
The fact the Tories have few posters up and fewer posters up even than Labour and Green supporters doesn't mean they are trailing even behind Labour and the Greens, just wealthy Tories think displaying a poster of their allegiances is a bit common
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49809-second-yougov-2024-election-mrp-shows-conservatives-on-lowest-seat-total-in-history
@LostPassword was mentioning the number of people not in work at present - currently about 9.4 million people aged 16-64.
This sounds like a lot and the comment was made that we should be doing more to get these people back into work. This has long been a Tory soundbite with Sunak a couple of months ago harping on about people on the sickand GPs being too lenient with them.
What he failed to mention (what a surprise) is how these numbers actually break down.
As of the latest numbers for Feb-Apr this year:
2.5 million are students in full time education. (27%)
1.7 million are Housewives/Househusbands -looking after family etc. (18%)
1.1 million are retired (11.5%)
1 million are 'other' - that is independently wealthy, waiting for the results of job applications etc. (11%)
205 thousand are short term sick (2.2%)
2.8 million are long term sick (30%)
Now there will be some of the long term sick who can get back into work but generally looking at those numbers I am not sure there is a great deal of 'fat' to be attacked there.
No big surprise; no big deal.
@RishiSunak
48 hours to stop a Starmer supermajority.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1808031907155792153
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58476547
Silly Cnuttish legislation has enabled this. Water does what water does. Even the multibillion Thames Tideway tunnel won't stop sewage discharges into the Thames, just reduce the frequency.
Not even Rishi is predicting he'll be PM, he's trying to blunt the size of Starmer's majority.
Big G isn't a massive media conglomerate with an agenda. He's a retired policeman from Llandudno. He's just telling you what he thinks at any particular time. You might reasonably think - or even say - "ah, that's just how you feel now, but I think you'll vote Con again at election time." But how he feels isn't down to bias or any sort of agenda he's trying to promote. He's just vocalising the thought processes and changes of heart that thousands of voters do over the course of the electoral cycle. We're getting to see it in real time. Isn't in fascinating? I find your implication that you are somehow morally superior for not doing this puzzling. I'm sure you've changed your mind about who you are going to vote for at one time or another - you've just kept it to yourself. Nothing inherently superior about that.
And if you've never changed your mind about who you might vote for - well, that's even more peculiar. Even HYUFD has done that.
It's also pretty well the only realistic scenario for replacing the nominee without a massive fight.
What might be part of any deal would be the identity of the nominee. And Harris could hardly complain about that, as it's a significant part of why she was picked as VP herself.
A new centre right party/grouping would obviously emerge and hopefully would realise that taking the electorate for granted for 200 years or more is no longer acceptable.
Which is a good thing, IMO.
The silly Cnuttish regulator just allowed Thames shareholders to pay themselves a £150m dividend.
And do the mental health conditions actually make it impossible to work for months or years (obviously some will) and will being stuck at home improve or worsen matters?
That is where the focus needs to be.
My wife hasn't been able to work for several years, I had to accept the end of my hopes for more children because we wouldn't be able to afford childcare on my income alone, and it was too much to expect of her to do so in her present condition. I know what the reality of this is like for many people.
But 1-in-4 does still seem like a lot. And less than half the total population in work does seem a bit low. Looking at figures in British history, and for other countries, would help to gain some perspective on this.
Looks more Saatchi than the CCHQ intern ads we have had up until now. Won't stop Labour winning but might narrow the gap a bit further
Under FPTP you ain't getting another centre right party other than the Tories, certainly not the current LDs
What a ridiculous country and ridiculous media environment we have where this is something that actually resonates with some people.
I mean, are people genuinely thick enough to believe that if something serious happened at 6:10pm on a Friday, like a terrorist attack or a war or something, Starmer would turn around and say “Sod off, me and my kids are playing Scrabble” ?
This is a guy who has literally been a lawyer for a lot of his life, at a very high level. I’m sure he’s worked far more 2ams than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss et al.
The whole j'accuse thing is way OTT.
Anyway, I'm something of an Emersonian.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."
As unfair as that is given the context, and the full quote, its a really stupid thing to say in the run in.
Of course it makes no overall difference but its the sort of thing that might tip a few seats and undecideds/Tory waverers/Labour distrusters
It does suggest a bit of complacency had sunk in to me
Which is the problem. Data varies year by year, pick one path and there's swings and roundabouts.
But by picking the highest of all three paths it's an unaffordable ratchet.
Was Big G really the heat?
Somebody has to try to hold a Labour government to account from the right, and at this stage, it won’t be Reform.
Thanks for the bold statement of certainly, though. In the unlikely event that Labour do massively underperform I will be giggling at you for a while.
(As indeed it must be, as we expect people to do it in tandem with being an MP and running a political party)
Two hundred and thirty. You could back your opinion with a ton and win £23,000 if you are right. Twenty three thousand pounds on a £100 bet! Now, I assume you have taken that bet and that you are not just posturing on here to garner attention. Right? Because if you haven't you must either be full of shit or utterly stupid. Which is it?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249009
It’s a journey back to where Big G started and where everyone expected him to end up so perhaps worthy of less interest and vituperation than he’s received.
Or, Police Squad wise 'not one man on this force will rest for one moment until we find the killer' 'right, let's get a spot of lunch'
“I can’t see the Tories falling below 150 seats in a million years” - well you can get some outstanding odds on them getting 150 or more!
Otherwise BigG would hang out in the Llandudno motorists FB group, and I'd be in the cycle lanes proliferation WhatsApp group. And both all the poorer for it - literally, as I've adjusted my betting position based on BigG's posts!
It's the Jewish angle that I find interesting. On the one hand it wrong foots the critics for not knowing and respecting Jewish practices (I knew when the Sabbath starts because I used to instruct an orthodox barrister and if you wanted advice on a Friday in winter you made sure to ring early). OTOH I am not sure if I knew lady s was Jewish. That fact coming to prominence could do labour harm in Muslim heavy constituencies.