I'd be surprised if Jenrick gets the job. My prediction is Cleverly or Badenoch.
Okay, I am no Tory, but Cleverly seems okay to me. Palatable. Still wouldn't vote for them
Jenrick grew up in Wolverhampton to working class parents, so will have more connection to provincial voters than Rishi did as will Cleverly from an average family in Lewisham
Switch “Lewisham” with “Blackheath”, and that reads rather differently.
I quite like the fact that Cleverly got his degree in hospitality management studies.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Why do you think people vote Tory in WWC seats when there is the chance to vote for Reform?
I'd be surprised if Jenrick gets the job. My prediction is Cleverly or Badenoch.
Okay, I am no Tory, but Cleverly seems okay to me. Palatable. Still wouldn't vote for them
Jenrick grew up in Wolverhampton to working class parents, so will have more connection to provincial voters than Rishi did as will Cleverly from an average family in Lewisham
Switch “Lewisham” with “Blackheath”, and that reads rather differently.
I quite like the fact that Cleverly got his degree in hospitality management studies.
I'd be surprised if Jenrick gets the job. My prediction is Cleverly or Badenoch.
Okay, I am no Tory, but Cleverly seems okay to me. Palatable. Still wouldn't vote for them
Jenrick grew up in Wolverhampton to working class parents, so will have more connection to provincial voters than Rishi did as will Cleverly from an average family in Lewisham
Switch “Lewisham” with “Blackheath”, and that reads rather differently.
I quite like the fact that Cleverly got his degree in hospitality management studies.
Andrew Bailey and Rachel Reeves are economic terrorists.
Britain’s biggest banks slumped on the stock market this afternoon after the Bank of England cut interest rates.
NatWest lost 8pc, HSBC dropped 6.5pc and Lloyds fell 5.7pc. The banks were among the biggest fallers among the FTSE 100, which fell 1pc.
Lower rates could weigh on interest margins, a key source of income for lenders.
The pessimism towards banks was also felt in continental Europea. Share prices across the European banking sector dropped 4.5pc.
The losses were fuelled by French banking giant Societe Generale, which tumbled almost 9pc after it cut its guidance for income from French retail lending.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Why do you think people vote Tory in WWC seats when there is the chance to vote for Reform?
old style party loyalty, but thats increasingly on the wane.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
I'm not sure whose spare cash you mean, but I don't think I agree. It is natural for landlords to want to rent their properties to avoid paying to maintain them without an income. That should mean there is never a signficant amount of empty high street stock - rents should fall to meet demand. That's what has always happened in the past. Neighbourhoods have gone up and down, with posh shops replaced by more lowly shops, but there hasn't been a ghost town effect. This isn't happening now afaics because we have a big issue with pension funds being balls deep in commercial property and not wanting to accept that their assets are worth tens of millions less than they say they are. So they hang on to vastly unrealistic rents and nobody bites.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Thanks and common ground on housing, particularly getting more people on the housing ladder (property owning democracy and all that), but completely part company with the Farage understanding. Road to madness and extinction. And bye-bye Stratford for a very long time.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Why do you think people vote Tory in WWC seats when there is the chance to vote for Reform?
Cf the Rotherham result, from which it’s clear many Tories won’t touch Reform with a barge pole.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I take it no-one knows how business rates are set - hint it's based on achieved rents...
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
A lot of them look eminently gettable with the right bar chart.
And once again, there isn't much of a Lib Lab battleground there, even without any Sordid Deals.
On that list there are only 30 seats the LDs could gain with less than a further 10% swing from the Tories which isn't happening.
Not least as Jenrick would almost certainly do a deal with Farage if we still have FPTP so Reform stand down or put up paper candidates in seats where the Tories are first or second with Labour or the LDs their main opponents in return for the Tories not standing or only putting up paper candidates in seats where Reform are first or second with Labour their main opponents
Reform didn’t stand in West Dorset, safe Tory seat since the 1880s, and much good it did you…
Hardly safe in 1997, 01, 05 and 10.....Olly L was almost a cropper.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Why do you think people vote Tory in WWC seats when there is the chance to vote for Reform?
Cf the Rotherham result, from which it’s clear many Tories won’t touch Reform with a barge pole.
Yep. After the Farage, Tice and Lowe comments this week, the Tories would be mad to go near Reform. It's all very well pulling out of seats to focus on the Blue Wall but what you are then telling Blue Wall voters is that you will be going into coalition with Reform post-election. That is not a vote winning message.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
A lot of them look eminently gettable with the right bar chart.
And once again, there isn't much of a Lib Lab battleground there, even without any Sordid Deals.
On that list there are only 30 seats the LDs could gain with less than a further 10% swing from the Tories which isn't happening.
Not least as Jenrick would almost certainly do a deal with Farage if we still have FPTP so Reform stand down or put up paper candidates in seats where the Tories are first or second with Labour or the LDs their main opponents in return for the Tories not standing or only putting up paper candidates in seats where Reform are first or second with Labour their main opponents
Reform didn’t stand in West Dorset, safe Tory seat since the 1880s, and much good it did you…
Hardly safe in 1997, 01, 05 and 10.....Olly L was almost a cropper.
But Tory held, throughout, all those difficult years. The definition of a safe seat is one you hold even through the difficult times. Until now.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Thanks and common ground on housing, particularly getting more people on the housing ladder (property owning democracy and all that), but completely part company with the Farage understanding. Road to madness and extinction. And bye-bye Stratford for a very long time.
How has having a strong Lib Dem party hurt Labour? Reform and the Tories must stay separate (therein lying their strength) but would be foolish to rip each other to shreds for the same seats.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
A lot of them look eminently gettable with the right bar chart.
And once again, there isn't much of a Lib Lab battleground there, even without any Sordid Deals.
On that list there are only 30 seats the LDs could gain with less than a further 10% swing from the Tories which isn't happening.
Not least as Jenrick would almost certainly do a deal with Farage if we still have FPTP so Reform stand down or put up paper candidates in seats where the Tories are first or second with Labour or the LDs their main opponents in return for the Tories not standing or only putting up paper candidates in seats where Reform are first or second with Labour their main opponents
Reform didn’t stand in West Dorset, safe Tory seat since the 1880s, and much good it did you…
Tory vote at 36% still compared to say just 30% in Esher and Walton?
The Reform vote anyway is lower in LD held seats, bigger in Labour seats where the Tories were second
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
Really ? You need to win back the 2.8 million conservative voters who stayed at home. The protest voters will come back when theyre pissed off with Labour.
Indeed. Most of the Lib Dem gains were a product of highly coordinated tactical voting by people who are first and foremost anti-Tory and who aren't there to be 'won back' because they're never going to be voting Tory in the first place.
Comparing the increases in vote share to the LDs and to Labour in very similar, often neighbouring seats reveals a pattern of deliberate, explicit collusion on a scale never before seen.
To pick just two not particularly standout examples:
North Cornwall: LDs up 18%, Labour down 4%; but St Austell & Newquay: LDs down 0.5%, Labour up 7.5%
Bicester & Woodstock: LDs up 12%, Labour down 0.5%; but Buckingham & Bletchley: LDs down 6.5%, Labour up 9%
Nothing remotely resembling a 'Uniform Swing', and no evidence of genuine popularity for either party, just a concerted effort to vote out incumbent Tories.
These are votes cast by transients on the basis of hate, not hope. So going after this cohort would be an absolute fools errand and a misreading of the numbers.
So voters who stayed at home, Reform voters and even those who've never voted before who haven't bought into a life of bitter Toryphobic bile are all a more fertile source of potential votes next time.
This was the Corbynist view as well. We won't go after Tory voters, they are scum, we'll get the non-voters to back us instead. It was not hugely successful.
The anti-Tory party was dominant in the UK for over 20 years. It was really only finally beaten, in England at least, in 2015. That could have been the start of something. Instead, the Tories revived it and it is bigger, more ferocious, more efficiently distributed and better organised than ever. If the Tories ignore its existence or decide it can be ignored, they are not coming back to power for a very long time.
Corbyn got 262 seats, 40% of the vote and a hung parliament in 2017.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Thanks and common ground on housing, particularly getting more people on the housing ladder (property owning democracy and all that), but completely part company with the Farage understanding. Road to madness and extinction. And bye-bye Stratford for a very long time.
I see no reason why Con Ref couldnt develop over time like Lab Coop
Farage is an innate disrupter focus him on Labour. He is second in about 100 seats most of which are Labour and seats the conservatives have little chance of winning. No doubt blue wall tories like you dont want to be teamed up with oiks but all that says is you dont want power enough. A pact may last as long as it lasts (you happily knifed Clegg so lets not pretend theres any honour involved ) but it may be Ref soften over time and you learn to live with each other.
But to me if you want to go back to power at national level soon you will need to leave your civil war behind and cut a deal.
I have to say it's a sad day when the Ulsterman is saying put your balaclavas away.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I take it no-one knows how business rates are set - hint it's based on achieved rents...
Hence the castles in the sky.
Simply - aside from so very high footfall places in some towns, most shops are worth Jack & shit.
And Jack left town.
The problem is that everyone has a vested interest in believing they full of geese laying golden eggs.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
I have never seen so much overtly racist, white supremacist content on my timeline as I have over the last few weeks. It's clear that Musk has totally given up running Twitter as a business. I guess that has set him free.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
I think the Cons face extinction as a major party if they don't react carefully to July 4th. The LDs becoming the dominant non-Labour party in the Remainy South and Reform becoming that in the Brexity North - this could squeeze them out of the living room and into the kitchen.
Unless the LDs become fiscally conservative Orange Book and a centre right party that won't happen and in any case would only really be in Remain seats in the South (and of course most Southern seats did still vote Leave) and lead to its social democratic voters defecting to Labour
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
Really ? You need to win back the 2.8 million conservative voters who stayed at home. The protest voters will come back when theyre pissed off with Labour.
Indeed. Most of the Lib Dem gains were a product of highly coordinated tactical voting by people who are first and foremost anti-Tory and who aren't there to be 'won back' because they're never going to be voting Tory in the first place.
Comparing the increases in vote share to the LDs and to Labour in very similar, often neighbouring seats reveals a pattern of deliberate, explicit collusion on a scale never before seen.
To pick just two not particularly standout examples:
North Cornwall: LDs up 18%, Labour down 4%; but St Austell & Newquay: LDs down 0.5%, Labour up 7.5%
Bicester & Woodstock: LDs up 12%, Labour down 0.5%; but Buckingham & Bletchley: LDs down 6.5%, Labour up 9%
Nothing remotely resembling a 'Uniform Swing', and no evidence of genuine popularity for either party, just a concerted effort to vote out incumbent Tories.
These are votes cast by transients on the basis of hate, not hope. So going after this cohort would be an absolute fools errand and a misreading of the numbers.
So voters who stayed at home, Reform voters and even those who've never voted before who haven't bought into a life of bitter Toryphobic bile are all a more fertile source of potential votes next time.
This was the Corbynist view as well. We won't go after Tory voters, they are scum, we'll get the non-voters to back us instead. It was not hugely successful.
The anti-Tory party was dominant in the UK for over 20 years. It was really only finally beaten, in England at least, in 2015. That could have been the start of something. Instead, the Tories revived it and it is bigger, more ferocious, more efficiently distributed and better organised than ever. If the Tories ignore its existence or decide it can be ignored, they are not coming back to power for a very long time.
Corbyn got 262 seats, 40% of the vote and a hung parliament in 2017.
He lost. If that's what the Tories want to do it is fine by me!
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
I have never seen so much overtly racist, white supremacist content on my timeline as I have over the last few weeks. It's clear that Musk has totally given up running Twitter as a business. I guess that has set him free.
Well if people are saying things which are actually illegal, as opposed to merely provocative, I hope the police and the courts take an interest.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
But surely the Cons should be hoping they might come back? The Conservatives surely have to be aiming wider than just leave viters over 50. I agree with at least some of what JohnO says. Competence, and putting together a policy set that will appeal to younger people. That doesn't mean going all BBC3. Just recognise the aspirations of the generation who might hope to own a home and raise a family. That's what Conservatives used to do.
For a majority yes but even if they only win back voters aged 50-65 from Labour that likely gives a hung parliament
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
A lot of them look eminently gettable with the right bar chart.
And once again, there isn't much of a Lib Lab battleground there, even without any Sordid Deals.
On that list there are only 30 seats the LDs could gain with less than a further 10% swing from the Tories which isn't happening.
Not least as Jenrick would almost certainly do a deal with Farage if we still have FPTP so Reform stand down or put up paper candidates in seats where the Tories are first or second with Labour or the LDs their main opponents in return for the Tories not standing or only putting up paper candidates in seats where Reform are first or second with Labour their main opponents
Reform didn’t stand in West Dorset, safe Tory seat since the 1880s, and much good it did you…
Hardly safe in 1997, 01, 05 and 10.....Olly L was almost a cropper.
But Tory held, throughout, all those difficult years. The definition of a safe seat is one you hold even through the difficult times. Until now.
They did but you said "safe Tory seat since the 1880s" and I merely pointed out that it demonstably wasn't for four consecutive elections,
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Thanks and common ground on housing, particularly getting more people on the housing ladder (property owning democracy and all that), but completely part company with the Farage understanding. Road to madness and extinction. And bye-bye Stratford for a very long time.
I see no reason why Con Ref couldnt develop over time like Lab Coop
Farage is an innate disrupter focus him on Labour. He is second in about 100 seats most of which are Labour and seats the conservatives have little chance of winning. No doubt blue wall tories like you dont want to be teamed up with oiks but all that says is you dont want power enough. A pact may last as long as it lasts (you happily knifed Clegg so lets not pretend theres any honour involved ) but it may be Ref soften over time and you learn to live with each other.
But to me if you want to go back to power at national level soon you will need to leave your civil war behind and cut a deal.
I have to say it's a sad day when the Ulsterman is saying put your balaclavas away.
Bonkers but I like you.
Thank goodness you went to Grammar School rather than throwing rocks at Fenian Catholic oiks like my small but perfectly formed personage.
Keir Starmer warns social media companies and those who run them that violent disorder whipped up online is a crime
'It's happening on your premises. The law must be upheld everywhere. We will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe'
Let's see how he handles the next pro Hamas march.
Are they violent? There's a lot of hate on signs and banners and so on. But actual violence disorder?
I may be mis-remembering.
Oh I think they get their share of violence towards the end of the day, like that Iranian bloke who waves an Israeli flag and then gets the crap beaten out of him. The plods let it go because they cant manage a large crowd.
Hugely less violent than these thuggish EDL type affairs. The violence isn't incidental with these, it's the point.
But violent nonetheless, why should we have two different sets of policing standards ?
There are grey areas of course but there is a meaningful distinction between going to a protest and going for a rumble.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
I think the Cons face extinction as a major party if they don't react carefully to July 4th. The LDs becoming the dominant non-Labour party in the Remainy South and Reform becoming that in the Brexity North - this could squeeze them out of the living room and into the kitchen.
Unless the LDs become fiscally conservative Orange Book and a centre right party that won't happen and in any case would only really be in Remain seats in the South (and of course most Southern seats did still vote Leave) and lead to its social democratic voters defecting to Labour
The state your party is in at the moment, they just need to be diligent, honest, and sensible. All the things the conduct of your MPs - and of the leaders you yourself have helped to choose - has so merrily chucked in the bin.
Didn’t Trump say he was the only one who could persuade Putin to send Gershkovich home? The things not necessarily turning out to the Donald’s advantage are mounting up.
Didn’t Trump say he was the only one who could persuade Putin to send Gershkovich home? The things not necessarily turning out to the Donald’s advantage are mounting up.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Thatcher in 1979 won as she offered right wing red meat and the Labour government was unpopular and failing on the economy and got over 40% of the vote and a clear majority. Cameron offered 'hug a hoodie', as green and centrist and socially liberal an agenda as you can get in 2010 and still failed to get over 40% or a majority.
If the right is reunited with the aim of getting rid of Labour and a Labour government unpopular at the next general election anything can happen.
Elections are not always won by liberal centrists, even Starmer got just 33% last month, 7% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. There was hardly a surge of enthusiasm for Starmer centrism, it was the divide on the right that gave him a landslide!
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
A lot of them look eminently gettable with the right bar chart.
And once again, there isn't much of a Lib Lab battleground there, even without any Sordid Deals.
On that list there are only 30 seats the LDs could gain with less than a further 10% swing from the Tories which isn't happening.
Not least as Jenrick would almost certainly do a deal with Farage if we still have FPTP so Reform stand down or put up paper candidates in seats where the Tories are first or second with Labour or the LDs their main opponents in return for the Tories not standing or only putting up paper candidates in seats where Reform are first or second with Labour their main opponents
Reform didn’t stand in West Dorset, safe Tory seat since the 1880s, and much good it did you…
Hardly safe in 1997, 01, 05 and 10.....Olly L was almost a cropper.
But Tory held, throughout, all those difficult years. The definition of a safe seat is one you hold even through the difficult times. Until now.
They did but you said "safe Tory seat since the 1880s" and I merely pointed out that it demonstably wasn't for four consecutive elections,
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Thanks and common ground on housing, particularly getting more people on the housing ladder (property owning democracy and all that), but completely part company with the Farage understanding. Road to madness and extinction. And bye-bye Stratford for a very long time.
I see no reason why Con Ref couldnt develop over time like Lab Coop
Farage is an innate disrupter focus him on Labour. He is second in about 100 seats most of which are Labour and seats the conservatives have little chance of winning. No doubt blue wall tories like you dont want to be teamed up with oiks but all that says is you dont want power enough. A pact may last as long as it lasts (you happily knifed Clegg so lets not pretend theres any honour involved ) but it may be Ref soften over time and you learn to live with each other.
But to me if you want to go back to power at national level soon you will need to leave your civil war behind and cut a deal.
I have to say it's a sad day when the Ulsterman is saying put your balaclavas away.
Bonkers but I like you.
Thank goodness you went to Grammar School rather than throwing rocks at Fenian Catholic oiks like my small but perfectly formed personage.
Half my rellies are catcholic I can throw stones at them any time.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
Really ? You need to win back the 2.8 million conservative voters who stayed at home. The protest voters will come back when theyre pissed off with Labour.
Indeed. Most of the Lib Dem gains were a product of highly coordinated tactical voting by people who are first and foremost anti-Tory and who aren't there to be 'won back' because they're never going to be voting Tory in the first place.
Comparing the increases in vote share to the LDs and to Labour in very similar, often neighbouring seats reveals a pattern of deliberate, explicit collusion on a scale never before seen.
To pick just two not particularly standout examples:
North Cornwall: LDs up 18%, Labour down 4%; but St Austell & Newquay: LDs down 0.5%, Labour up 7.5%
Bicester & Woodstock: LDs up 12%, Labour down 0.5%; but Buckingham & Bletchley: LDs down 6.5%, Labour up 9%
Nothing remotely resembling a 'Uniform Swing', and no evidence of genuine popularity for either party, just a concerted effort to vote out incumbent Tories.
These are votes cast by transients on the basis of hate, not hope. So going after this cohort would be an absolute fools errand and a misreading of the numbers.
So voters who stayed at home, Reform voters and even those who've never voted before who haven't bought into a life of bitter Toryphobic bile are all a more fertile source of potential votes next time.
You call it collusion but it wasn't the tories were a shambles and needed ousting
Would we have done a deal like this? The Russian murderer isn't going to sit in a Russian prison is he? I presume it's been done for political reasons. As Bill Browder says it potentially puts critics of Putin outside of Russia at greater risk.
Keir Starmer warns social media companies and those who run them that violent disorder whipped up online is a crime
'It's happening on your premises. The law must be upheld everywhere. We will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe'
Let's see how he handles the next pro Hamas march.
Are they violent? There's a lot of hate on signs and banners and so on. But actual violence disorder?
I may be mis-remembering.
Oh I think they get their share of violence towards the end of the day, like that Iranian bloke who waves an Israeli flag and then gets the crap beaten out of him. The plods let it go because they cant manage a large crowd.
Hugely less violent than these thuggish EDL type affairs. The violence isn't incidental with these, it's the point.
But violent nonetheless, why should we have two different sets of policing standards ?
There are grey areas of course but there is a meaningful distinction between going to a protest and going for a rumble.
Well lets see how thing pan out in Leicester when the next riot is brought together by social media. Will they arrest the muslims or the Hindus or nobody because of "comminuty relarions"
Or is SKS just swaggering tough because he couldnt be arsed to spend more than 2 minutes with the Southport folk.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
He sacks anyone who disagrees with him. Like many 'hype' bosses, he is surrounded by yes-men; men who know that if you do what the boss wants, you're fine. If you don't... you're not.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I take it no-one knows how business rates are set - hint it's based on achieved rents...
Hence the castles in the sky.
Simply - aside from so very high footfall places in some towns, most shops are worth Jack & shit.
And Jack left town.
The problem is that everyone has a vested interest in believing they full of geese laying golden eggs.
Is there any reason why thriving high streets of the future won't be replete with nail bars, tattoo parlours and vape shops after they've seen off unfair competition from charities?
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I take it no-one knows how business rates are set - hint it's based on achieved rents...
Hence the castles in the sky.
Simply - aside from so very high footfall places in some towns, most shops are worth Jack & shit.
And Jack left town.
The problem is that everyone has a vested interest in believing they full of geese laying golden eggs.
But if rents were allowed to fall to their natural level, and shops let for less or sold, a whole new cohort of shopkeepers, Mum who's always wanted to try her hand at selling candles, Uncle who'd like to have a whisky shop, become viable. In my parents town, the High Street has many empty shops, but a set of traffic lights on from the High Street where rents are far smaller is thriving.
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
There is nothing funnier than watching Fascists fall out.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
Thats because we have allowed it to happen. we subsidised Jeff Bezos to kill off our retailers and screwed councils into to raising ridiculous rates bills,
Along with
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use. 2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
I take it no-one knows how business rates are set - hint it's based on achieved rents...
Hence the castles in the sky.
Simply - aside from so very high footfall places in some towns, most shops are worth Jack & shit.
And Jack left town.
The problem is that everyone has a vested interest in believing they full of geese laying golden eggs.
But if rents were allowed to fall to their natural level, and shops let for less or sold, a whole new cohort of shopkeepers, Mum who's always wanted to try her hand at selling candles, Uncle who'd like to have a whisky shop, become viable. In my parents town, the High Street has many empty shops, but a set of traffic lights on from the High Street where rents are far smaller is thriving.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
Since you asked . . .
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - X suspends ‘White Dudes for Harris’ account after massive fundraiser
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
He sacks anyone who disagrees with him. Like many 'hype' bosses, he is surrounded by yes-men; men who know that if you do what the boss wants, you're fine. If you don't... you're not.
Something that was briefly suspended and then reinstated, which if it been from Trump four years ago would have been instantly and banned for racism and misogyny.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Thatcher in 1979 won as she offered right wing red meat and the Labour government was unpopular and failing on the economy and got over 40% of the vote and a clear majority. Cameron offered 'hug a hoodie', as green and centrist and socially liberal an agenda as you can get in 2010 and still failed to get over 40% or a majority.
If the right is reunited with the aim of getting rid of Labour and a Labour government unpopular at the next general election anything can happen.
Elections are not always won by liberal centrists, even Starmer got just 33% last month, 7% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. There was hardly a surge of enthusiasm for Starmer centrism, it was the divide on the right that gave him a landslide!
Were you even alive in 1979? I was actively campaigning then and was elected a Councillor in that election. Your depiction of that era is seriously flawed. The Tory manifesto was hardly extreme and behind Callagahan and Healey, the far left of the Labour Party was in the ascendant. Mrs T was supported by many 'moderates'. With respect, you are far too simplistic in your analyses.
And the mantra of 'uniting the right' where the putative partner is out to destroy the Conservative Party is one that should be rejected by our members.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Why not try having some conservative policies ?
You know small state, responsible spending, remember there life outside the South East.
Just a thought.
Amiable motherhood platitudes....care to elaborate on some specifics? The swing to the LibDems in Stratford-On-Avon was 24.5% and their votes increased by 10,000, so there's something rather more fundamental going on far beyond the South East.
Oh let's see. The locals werent impressed when the previous incumbent claimed for heating his stables, so we could try having a bit straighter MP. The highest taxes in a generation didnt go down well when theres quite a bit of government waste. There has been no effeort to reverse the Blair settlement so the Tories keep trying to be "progressive" which deosnt work. Cur back the number of laws, stop no win no fee, and free up the economic environment to let a bit of entrepreneurialism back in to the economy. Weve discussed houses to death on the board, but you didnt build any because you made it too hard to do, ut not having young people on the housing ladder kills your future pool of voters. Build house build infrastructure and try to be a first world nation again. I could also give you comments on defenee, migration( control it ) and environment but it will only bore the tits off you.
You should also have a pact with Reform, Reform can win seats in place the Tories will never reach. So pretending you can win in WWC seats is pointless, let Farage go shit stirring on Labour while you refocus on Blue wall. As my good mate Adolf found out fighting a war on two fronts is a mugs game.
I coul go on but Ive got 5 years of Labour failure to laugh at so theres no rush.
Why do you think people vote Tory in WWC seats when there is the chance to vote for Reform?
Cf the Rotherham result, from which it’s clear many Tories won’t touch Reform with a barge pole.
Yep. After the Farage, Tice and Lowe comments this week, the Tories would be mad to go near Reform. It's all very well pulling out of seats to focus on the Blue Wall but what you are then telling Blue Wall voters is that you will be going into coalition with Reform post-election. That is not a vote winning message.
The Cons need to knuckle down and do the hard yards to win back the centre. If they do that it might take a while but there'll be a Tory PM again.
Labour have a big majority but also a big vulnerability. They've made it totemic to achieve high growth when it's largely outside their power whether that happens and it probably won't.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
I voted tory until 2010, you wont be ever getting me back frankly simple as that. I rather not vote than vote for your party of idiots
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
Interesting that it was the prosecution asking, presumably as well as the defence.
Keir Starmer warns social media companies and those who run them that violent disorder whipped up online is a crime
'It's happening on your premises. The law must be upheld everywhere. We will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe'
Let's see how he handles the next pro Hamas march.
Are they violent? There's a lot of hate on signs and banners and so on. But actual violence disorder?
I may be mis-remembering.
Oh I think they get their share of violence towards the end of the day, like that Iranian bloke who waves an Israeli flag and then gets the crap beaten out of him. The plods let it go because they cant manage a large crowd.
Hugely less violent than these thuggish EDL type affairs. The violence isn't incidental with these, it's the point.
But violent nonetheless, why should we have two different sets of policing standards ?
There are grey areas of course but there is a meaningful distinction between going to a protest and going for a rumble.
Well lets see how thing pan out in Leicester when the next riot is brought together by social media. Will they arrest the muslims or the Hindus or nobody because of "comminuty relarions"
Or is SKS just swaggering tough because he couldnt be arsed to spend more than 2 minutes with the Southport folk.
Both Hindu and Islamic rioters were nicked following the disturbances in Leicester 2 years ago, though as often is the case from video and later raids rather than inflaming the situation on the night.
SKS was right to keep a respectful silence at Southport. There is a time and place for political heckling and banter but not at the time of laying flowers immediately after the incident.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
Interesting that it was the prosecution asking, presumably as well as the defence.
Possibly worried that naming him would lead to a social media firestorm regardless of sub judice and undermine any chance of a fair trial?
Didn’t Trump say he was the only one who could persuade Putin to send Gershkovich home? The things not necessarily turning out to the Donald’s advantage are mounting up.
But I suppose the Donald - who is "not like normal politicians" - could have done it with a single phone call. No need for all these complex machinations.
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
With all due respect, when you're shutting down criticism of yourself - particularly if you are donating $40+m a month a political campaign - then you are at the very least a thin skinned hypocrite.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
Interesting that it was the prosecution asking, presumably as well as the defence.
Possibly worried that naming him would lead to a social media firestorm regardless of sub judice and undermine any chance of a fair trial?
I suspect the judge isn't too worried because of the circumstances. I'm not sure what could happen that would allow the defence to get the case thrown out.
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
That's truly awful from Vance. It should be 'lie' not 'lay' of course:
“In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon”.
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
There is nothing funnier than watching Fascists fall out.
Harsh on Fascists.
This is just the falling-out of incompetent grifters.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
He could surprise on the upside.
I am not a Tory, never voted Tory in a GE, only once in a local election, therefore I hold no torch for them and have little knowledge of Jenrick apart from his rather hapless time as a Minister.
Well, it just goes to show you should never judge a book by its cover.
I had you pegged as a diehard Conservative.
If you're one of the "I don't like any of them" brigade. fine, but what would you support or for what would you vote positively rather than negatively?
"pegged" !!!!!
Why would you have me down as a Tory, just as a matter of interest ?
I did post here that I was not going to vote, but in the end, and I said I would, I voted for Luke Akehurst our Labour candidate. I do not loathe Reform supporters like some people on this board, I live among many of them, but I didn't want to risk a Reform MP here and their economic policies were crackers. I'm socially liberal and fiscally more conservative so I like Rachel Reeves and the cut of her jib. I also don't think she has done anything wrong so far. I like the likes our Haigh, Cooper, Phillipson and Streeting too.
The Tories were just to utterly incompetent at the end. They needed putting out of their misery. SKS and co deserve a chance. Another 5 years of the preceding 5 years would be unbearable.
The only time I ever voted Tory was for a local councillor who was excellent and did alot for the ward. I saw that more as an endorsement of him personally than his party.
Pegged - as in a square one going into a round hole it would seem.
You've posted about as often as I have but as I drop in and out on here I don't read every post. I just had the sense you were often defending the Conservatives and being critical of Labour so I made the assumption which I shouldn't have done.
In truth, you aren't a million miles away from me and I'm happy to give the new Government a fair crack of the whip for all some on here seem to think the IMF will be here in four years. I'd only disagree the Conservatives didn't need putting out of their misery, they needed putting out of our misery.
I find Reform a paradox as I've said on here before - the anti-immigration line is all that holds them together. Farage and Tice are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want tax cuts especially for the wealthy while the Reform membership and voters are more nuanced - some still cling to the Johnsonian levelling up agenda, others simply want more spending and investment in WWC areas.
I suspect from the reform voters I know here they are social conservatives but want alot more spending here. Many went for Bojo due to the promise of levelling up. Our areas have been neglected and ignored for long enough. My hope is the local mayor here will make a difference. A reform MP probably won’t .
I think in places like this Reform could be a threat to labour in five years so they will need to do something for the area.
I think they just want solutions. High streets to stop being wastelands full of empty shops. That's not due to lack of spending, that's due to pension funds and their overvalued property portfolios.
Reform voters want a return to a past that is no longer possible - shops can only exist if there is appropriate spare cash to keep them going and in an awful lot of reform voting areas that cash doesn't exist.
We went to Redcar last night because the weather was decent. When you walk along the sea front and see that another few shops have closed it does get rather depression.
I'm not sure whose spare cash you mean, but I don't think I agree. It is natural for landlords to want to rent their properties to avoid paying to maintain them without an income. That should mean there is never a signficant amount of empty high street stock - rents should fall to meet demand. That's what has always happened in the past. Neighbourhoods have gone up and down, with posh shops replaced by more lowly shops, but there hasn't been a ghost town effect. This isn't happening now afaics because we have a big issue with pension funds being balls deep in commercial property and not wanting to accept that their assets are worth tens of millions less than they say they are. So they hang on to vastly unrealistic rents and nobody bites.
Yes retail shops are definitely yesterday's technology in most cases. We need to speed up the end of the high street, by making it much easier for shops to be converted back to residences. Of course the Luddites will protest for a while, and invoke lots of sentimental drivel to hold back progress, but hopefully they will be ignored.
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
Ah a Golden Dawn. Yes, we get it.
To be fair, at least we've moved on from golden showers.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
No grand narrative. Just a young man not coping with the world, with tragic consequences.
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
He sacks anyone who disagrees with him. Like many 'hype' bosses, he is surrounded by yes-men; men who know that if you do what the boss wants, you're fine. If you don't... you're not.
Something that was briefly suspended and then reinstated, which if it been from Trump four years ago would have been instantly and banned for racism and misogyny.
Oh, come off it, it's got bells on. You asked for an example, and I gave you one.
And it's odd how, when it came back, it was initially in permanent read-only mode before the stink caused them to give full access back.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Thatcher in 1979 won as she offered right wing red meat and the Labour government was unpopular and failing on the economy and got over 40% of the vote and a clear majority. Cameron offered 'hug a hoodie', as green and centrist and socially liberal an agenda as you can get in 2010 and still failed to get over 40% or a majority.
If the right is reunited with the aim of getting rid of Labour and a Labour government unpopular at the next general election anything can happen.
Elections are not always won by liberal centrists, even Starmer got just 33% last month, 7% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. There was hardly a surge of enthusiasm for Starmer centrism, it was the divide on the right that gave him a landslide!
As a right winger can I just say I don't want anything to do with the tory party, you are a bunch of cupids as mr everett used to say. I would love your party to die
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
That's unfair - to Hague.
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Hague and IDS faced Blair at his peak, the most charismatic and centrist leader Labour have ever had who was elected with 43% of the vote in 1997.
Jenrick would only have to face Starmer, one of the dullest leaders Labour have ever had, who only managed 33% of the vote even this year.
Indeed even Hague would probably have beaten Brown in 2010 had Howard been elected leader not him in 1997 and he replaced Howard after the 2001 defeat and stayed on after gains in 2005
So when Jenrick leads them to fourth party status he really has no excuse?
It's rarely mentioned here - but critical for the party's future - to appreciate that the LibDems directly gained around 60 seats on July 4th, and many with large majorities (here in Esher and Walton it was over 12,000 and a 22% margin).
The Tories have only have a lead of 49 seats, so a further switch of just 25 next time will leave them the third party. These are the voters - and those who voted Labour - we need to win back just to survive, let alone any eventual return to Government.
To be honest the Tories are more likely to bring back Reform voters than LD voters for now with their leadership pick, the former voted positively Tory in 2019 for Boris and Brexit, the latter only voted Tory to keep out Corbyn.
Unless Labour replaced Starmer with Rayner say I can't see LD voters going Tory anytime soon, even if Tugendhat was Tory leader.
Those who switched to Labour from Tory though are natural swing voters who may go Tory again if the economy is poor or Tory or Reform if the boats aren't stopped largely regardless of who is Tory leader.
Esher and Walton is now only the 250th Tory target seat, they could get a majority even if it stayed LD
I agree that the Tories mightbenefit from an unpopular Government, but that can't be guaranteed. The LibDems are (unfortunately) another sizeable opposition party and may also benefit.
I want as many former Tory voters to return to the fold, including those who 'defected' to Reform. But that can only happen when the party first appreciates the reasons for its huge rejection (Johnson's antics/sleaze destroyed any moral case - as did too many Tory MPs and the tawdry spiviness of Sunak's PPS and other CCHQ luninaries buzzing off to the bookies - and that Truss did the same for economic competence.
Then the hard work of devising credible social and economic policies that will appeal to younger (30-55?) people and their families. I have little confidence that either can be achieved by Jenrick and not at all should Badenoch or Patel be elected.
Remember though the median voter is already now 50 not 30!
All the Remain voting fiscally conservative Tories who might have gone LD pretty much left on 4th July anyway
I'd be (genuinely) interested in how you see the Tories getting to 200 seats, led alone 325.
In truth, you seem bewilderingly blase about the huge swathes of former True Blues no longer supporting the party. Relying on Labour's unpopularity and a bizarre pact with Farage (who openly wants to destroy the Conservatives, and which will drive away even more of us) simply isn't credible.
Thatcher in 1979 won as she offered right wing red meat and the Labour government was unpopular and failing on the economy and got over 40% of the vote and a clear majority. Cameron offered 'hug a hoodie', as green and centrist and socially liberal an agenda as you can get in 2010 and still failed to get over 40% or a majority.
If the right is reunited with the aim of getting rid of Labour and a Labour government unpopular at the next general election anything can happen.
Elections are not always won by liberal centrists, even Starmer got just 33% last month, 7% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. There was hardly a surge of enthusiasm for Starmer centrism, it was the divide on the right that gave him a landslide!
Were you even alive in 1979? I was actively campaigning then and was elected a Councillor in that election. Your depiction of that era is seriously flawed. The Tory manifesto was hardly extreme and behind Callagahan and Healey, the far left of the Labour Party was in the ascendant. Mrs T was supported by many 'moderates'. With respect, you are far too simplistic in your analyses.
And the mantra of 'uniting the right' where the putative partner is out to destroy the Conservative Party is one that should be rejected by our members.
Nonetheless in 1979 Callaghan was the centrist leader, Thatcher the rightwinger. Sunak was also on the centrist wing of the Tory party and lost this year.
In 2019 Boris did a pact with Farage and won a Tory landslide, as long as we have FPTP Farage needs a deal with the Tories to gain seats as much as the Tories need a largely clear run from Reform to gain seats. After all Labour only put up paper candidates with no central support in LD target seats this year and the LDs only put up paper candidates in Labour target seats too
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
There is nothing funnier than watching Fascists fall out.
Harsh on Fascists.
This is just the falling-out of incompetent grifters.
Are you implying Fascists are not incompetent grifters?
The KDF and the career of Clara Pettacci say otherwise.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
Interesting that it was the prosecution asking, presumably as well as the defence.
Possibly worried that naming him would lead to a social media firestorm regardless of sub judice and undermine any chance of a fair trial?
I sense the chances of the case being dismissed because of the impossibility of a fair trial are slim to none.
City and St George's are nowhere near each other, academically or geographically. One's a medical school in Tooting and the other's not a medical school in the City. What's going on?
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Musk is a weird mix. On the one hand, my conspiracy theorist mates love him because he's anti woke, loves Trump and is taking it to the lefty libtards. On the other hand he produces the poster child for EVs.... It's not unusual to see my mate Pete posting something Musk has said about ending the woke virus, while in the same hour Pete will post an anti EV rant about how they burst into flames at the drop of a hat. For the record, Pete is a serving fire fighter, and I know for a fact he has never been to an EV fire....
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
No grand narrative. Just a young man not coping with the world, with tragic consequences.
Yep, that little bit of detail suggests maybe no agenda (of course there may be more to come out). I wondered from frank booth's comment whether i'd missed something significant
Does anyone else have a feeling of dread at what seems to be going on at the moment re violence and disorder.
Twitter/X is not the real world; I know; but it’s getting very nasty out there.
I genuinely do fear there is more to come.
One thing we can say about Starmer is that he is a serious guy. Maybe he will go after social media as he says?
Ah yes, the old ‘censor the internet’ approach, that’s the reflexive action for Starmer and his lefty lawyer friends, but completely unenforceable in practice.
At a time when Twitter has a totally maverick boss who doesn’t give a f**k about profits and wants to stand up for freedom of speech.
Musk does not stand for freedom of speech. He shuts down accounts he does not like. That is his prerogative. But he is not above the law.
I don’t agree with everything he does, but most of what he’s banning is critism of himself and the company, rather than political philosophies. It’s not perfect, but it’s significantly better than the previous management of the platform.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
Okay, so who has Twitter blocked of any political significance?
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
He sacks anyone who disagrees with him. Like many 'hype' bosses, he is surrounded by yes-men; men who know that if you do what the boss wants, you're fine. If you don't... you're not.
Something that was briefly suspended and then reinstated, which if it been from Trump four years ago would have been instantly and banned for racism and misogyny.
Oh, come off it, it's got bells on. You asked for an example, and I gave you one.
And it's odd how, when it came back, it was initially in permanent read-only mode before the stink caused them to give full access back.
Oh okay, so under New Twitter these things get sorted out within hours, whereas under Old Twitter these things would run for months on end or result in permanent bans.
How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.
"Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.
Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.
I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.
And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"
Thames Water has looked doomed ever since interest rates went over about 1%. They were used as a source of capital and cheap debt by the owners as a way of monetising the income flow that came from their customers like they were gilts. The problem is that they got too greedy and the regulator was too stupid to spot the obvious risk, that that income flow was fixed by the margin they were allowed on their services, not by the rate of interest. As soon as the rate of interest increased the sustainable debt fell and the owners refused to pay it back, trying to blackmail the regulator into allowing additional charges instead.
It is a classic example of inept and incompetent regulation. Whether that is simply incompetence in the regulator or incompetence on the part of the people who set up the structure is a bit complicated but it is clear neither were fit for purpose.
Them and many many others.
The oil price is rocketing with the latest middle east goings on. You can forget interest rate cuts any time soon.
In fact with the Tory inflationary actions like double digit minimum wage rises and Ldbour inflationary actions like doctors 22% pensionsble pay rises, the next interest rate change may well be up.
That aged well.....
I think its a bloody stupid decision though, noting US held so they are now 0.5% above ours and Japan tightened.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
No grand narrative. Just a young man not coping with the world, with tragic consequences.
It matches with the descriptions from the village that no one saw him, though they did see his parents.
Perhaps lockdown at a critical stage of social development was a factor, though certainly isn't an excuse.
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
Sideshow Bob is a walking, talking greatest hits collection of all the reasons people detest the Tories:
- lockdown hypocrite - Rwanda deportation fanatic - out-of-touch squillionaire - best known for a policy so nasty (Duluxgate) that even *Nigel Farage* described it as “a bit mean” - overenthusiastic expenses claimant - overruler of best practice, established procedure and official advice to force through planning permission for a controversial development project overseen by a wealthy Tory donor (and ex-pornographer to boot) - recipient of personal donations of questionable legality from an Australian hedge fund magnate and a tax-dodging Tel Aviv-born billionaire (a family friend) - protégé of Suella Braverman - demonstrably incompetent record in government
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
No grand narrative. Just a young man not coping with the world, with tragic consequences.
That's not going to wash. A Nottingham-style attack in the street, maybe, but not this.
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
No grand narrative. Just a young man not coping with the world, with tragic consequences.
It matches with the descriptions from the village that no one saw him, though they did see his parents.
Perhaps lockdown at a critical stage of social development was a factor, though certainly isn't an excuse.
Perhaps if people stopped trying to make excuses for evil bastards and instead told them they are evil bastards instead of handing them excuses "Its not you fault because you (came from a broken family/were in lockdown at a certain period/ too poor/ etc) delete as applicable"
JD Vance . . . the gift that keeps on giving . . . to the Democratic Party in (the) general . . . and Kamala Harris in particular . . .
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
Ah a Golden Dawn. Yes, we get it.
Do you get a Golden Reign following that Golden Dawn?
Comments
Britain’s biggest banks slumped on the stock market this afternoon after the Bank of England cut interest rates.
NatWest lost 8pc, HSBC dropped 6.5pc and Lloyds fell 5.7pc. The banks were among the biggest fallers among the FTSE 100, which fell 1pc.
Lower rates could weigh on interest margins, a key source of income for lenders.
The pessimism towards banks was also felt in continental Europea. Share prices across the European banking sector dropped 4.5pc.
The losses were fuelled by French banking giant Societe Generale, which tumbled almost 9pc after it cut its guidance for income from French retail lending.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/01/ftse-100-markets-latest-shell-next-barclays-interest-rates/
City and St. George's universities merge
1) the housing crisis made turning shops into accommodation an easy win. So leave them derelict until the council gives in on change of use.
2) more importantly, the value of shops has collapsed. But castles in the sky have been built on the foundation of the value of commercial property. Often the banks have clauses preventing the landlord reducing prices…
The Reform vote anyway is lower in LD held seats, bigger in Labour seats where the Tories were second
Farage is an innate disrupter focus him on Labour. He is second in about 100 seats most of which are Labour and seats the conservatives have little chance of winning. No doubt blue wall tories like you dont want to be teamed up with oiks but all that says is you dont want power enough. A pact may last as long as it lasts (you happily knifed Clegg so lets not pretend theres any honour involved ) but it may be Ref soften over time and you learn to live with each other.
But to me if you want to go back to power at national level soon you will need to leave your civil war behind and cut a deal.
I have to say it's a sad day when the Ulsterman is saying put your balaclavas away.
Simply - aside from so very high footfall places in some towns, most shops are worth Jack & shit.
And Jack left town.
The problem is that everyone has a vested interest in believing they full of geese laying golden eggs.
How Biden gotn Evan Gershkovich home, like a plot out of a le Carre novel.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/evan-gershkovich-prisoner-exchange-ccb39ad3?st=811qp8le7r8uf5b&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
New York Times - Even as Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, his running mate’s contribution to a new book by the project’s principal architect is complicating his efforts.
“Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, calling for a “second American Revolution,” features a foreword by Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.
“In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Vance writes in his introduction, which was obtained and published online by The New Republic on Tuesday. The book is set for publication in September. . . .
Will Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, wrote in an email Wednesday that “the foreword has nothing to do with Project 2025.” Vance “has plenty of disagreements with what they’re calling for,” Martin wrote, adding: “Only President Trump will set the policy agenda for the next administration.”
In a July 5 post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he knew “nothing” about Project 2025 and its authors. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote. In a Fox News interview last week, he described its architects as “a group of very, very conservative people,” some of whose ambitions were “absolutely ridiculous.” . . .
Thank goodness you went to Grammar School rather than throwing rocks at Fenian Catholic oiks like my small but perfectly formed personage.
Musk is absolutely up Trump's backside atm, and his tweets show this. He is promoting right-wing shit at every opportunity, and his brainless followers slurp it up.
And like fish, companies rot from the head. If you're a Twix employee, you'll know very well what Musk wants. And it isn't in any way neutral.
If the right is reunited with the aim of getting rid of Labour and a Labour government unpopular at the next general election anything can happen.
Elections are not always won by liberal centrists, even Starmer got just 33% last month, 7% less than Corbyn got in 2017 and just 1% more than Corbyn got in 2019. There was hardly a surge of enthusiasm for Starmer centrism, it was the divide on the right that gave him a landslide!
His own political views are not those of his many companies.
Or is SKS just swaggering tough because he couldnt be arsed to spend more than 2 minutes with the Southport folk.
As for your question: from yesterday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/30/white-dudes-harris-suspended-x-twitter/
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - X suspends ‘White Dudes for Harris’ account after massive fundraiser
When arguing that the judge should impose reporting restrictions preventing Rudakubana's identification, the prosecution said the suspect had an “autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”, and that he had been “unwilling to leave the house and communicate with family for a period of time”.
The judge allowed Rudakubana's name to be made public, saying "the balance clearly comes down in favour of the public interest".
And the mantra of 'uniting the right' where the putative partner is out to destroy the Conservative Party is one that should be rejected by our members.
Labour have a big majority but also a big vulnerability. They've made it totemic to achieve high growth when it's largely outside their power whether that happens and it probably won't.
SKS was right to keep a respectful silence at Southport. There is a time and place for political heckling and banter but not at the time of laying flowers immediately after the incident.
“In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon”.
What a bozo.
This is just the falling-out of incompetent grifters.
And it's odd how, when it came back, it was initially in permanent read-only mode before the stink caused them to give full access back.
Poor memory
Struggling for the right word
Loss of spatial awareness
Negotiating big ticket prisoner swaps in the byzantine arena of wartime diplomacy
In 2019 Boris did a pact with Farage and won a Tory landslide, as long as we have FPTP Farage needs a deal with the Tories to gain seats as much as the Tories need a largely clear run from Reform to gain seats. After all Labour only put up paper candidates with no central support in LD target seats this year and the LDs only put up paper candidates in Labour target seats too
The KDF and the career of Clara Pettacci say otherwise.
And Slim has just left town.
That aged well.....
I think its a bloody stupid decision though, noting US held so they are now 0.5% above ours and Japan tightened.
What happened in Stockport stays in Stockport.
I'm drinking a can of John Smiths and being taciturn with the wife.
Perhaps lockdown at a critical stage of social development was a factor, though certainly isn't an excuse.
- lockdown hypocrite
- Rwanda deportation fanatic
- out-of-touch squillionaire
- best known for a policy so nasty (Duluxgate) that even *Nigel Farage* described it as “a bit mean”
- overenthusiastic expenses claimant
- overruler of best practice, established procedure and official advice to force through planning permission for a controversial development project overseen by a wealthy Tory donor (and ex-pornographer to boot)
- recipient of personal donations of questionable legality from an Australian hedge fund magnate and a tax-dodging Tel Aviv-born billionaire (a family friend)
- protégé of Suella Braverman
- demonstrably incompetent record in government