We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
Analysts at Panmure Liberum think the UK will be the “standout performer” among major economies in the months to come with firms set to benefit from strengthening domestic demand.
More accurately, Brexit is making sod all difference to our economic performance as some of us predicted.
Given the noise from other economic shocks - changes of government, Covid, Ukraine, tech advances - it'll take some time before the long term economic effect of Brexit can be determined. It'll be more informative to see where we are vis a vis our European peers after a couple of decades or so.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
I'm sure no one seriously involved in politics is assuming the 2028 or 2029 election is done and dusted for Labour.
The last election was unusual for the UK in terms of vote distributions but the Conservative and Labour parties despite winning only 56% of the vote still won 532 of the 633 English, Welsh and Scottish seats.
Not since the 1918 election has the combined Conservative/Labour share been so small and back then the two parties won about 60% of the vote and 430 seats (or something like that).
With so many constituencies now three way marginals (and even four way marginals in some instances), small changes in vote share will have big implications in terms of seat numbers.
It's as much hopecasting to say Starmer will win a second term at this time as to say he won't.
If you want some real comedy, put 20% for each of Labour, Conservatives, LDs and Reform and 15% for the Greens into Baxter, look at the results and try to form a Government from those numbers. Minutes of entertainment guaranteed.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
We have had the inspectors round. My small, three storey block has to install firedoors on each flat (good, I suppose) and illuminated fire exit signs despite there being only one possible route out, and some other stuff.
The illuminated sigh is to help you find it when you are confused by smoke and may eg have only just been woken up.
It's also possibly to provide emergency lighting.
If it's 3 stories high there should probably be some escape provision from the second floor via a window or alternative route.
I'm surprised that there are not firedoors already (I am assuming that you mean the external door from each flat to the common parts). That will be so that the other flats have a sealed (half-hour protection level probably) exit route.
That's right on the doors. On the route, there really is only one way, with no long corridors to wander down by mistake. Open your flat's front door, go down the stairs which are just there, and when you run out of stairs, that is the only exit.
I think basically we have been caught up in a regulation designed for large blocks with long corridors, some leading away from exits.
One thing there is not much guidance on, shades of Grenfell, is when to leave and when to stay in your own flat which should be isolated from any fire.
Remember that smoke or toxic from the "cul-de-sac" flats would interfere with exit from the others, and since smoke is C02 and particulates and water vapour and more noxious things it could roll down the stairs too.
So your firedoors may have intumescent seals. (That is not a blow up sex doll for aquatic mammals).
Plus fire doors work both ways - to protect you from a fire outside. And protect others from a fire in your flat.
The seals you refer to are awesome. The other day I mentioned a young babysitter who did exactly the right thing, when a fire broke out. The fire was in a dryer, in a utility cupboard/room. The builder had used fire doors with the seals. So when the lad discovered the fire, and shut the door, the seals held the smoke back (mostly). Which meant the evacuation of the house was quick and easy. Also limited the damage.
I have never been materially active in politics before, but this time I think civilization as we know it is on the line.
If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win.
Musk is an idiot. It would help Trump more to just continue making Twitter an echo chamber for far-right conspiracy theories. Musk openly coming out for Trump just devalues Twitter as an information source. He probably thinks his personal public endorsement is worth something like the narcissistic egomaniac he is, but is it a net benefit to Trump? Doubtful.
Also 'civilization as we know it is on the line' is a better issue for Harris than Trump.
The game here isn't just for Musk to help Trump, it's for Trump to think that Musk helped Trump.
Post-Left Watch @PostLeftWatch George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
Only a bounder wears a hat indoors unless you're a monarch or it involves some arcane sex game.
Or you're incredibly vain and bald as a coot.
Or you have been scarred in a nasty attack, as is the case here. I think Galloway is utterly detestable, but criticising him for wearing a hat is cheap.
Analysts at Panmure Liberum think the UK will be the “standout performer” among major economies in the months to come with firms set to benefit from strengthening domestic demand.
More accurately, Brexit is making sod all difference to our economic performance as some of us predicted.
Given the noise from other economic shocks - changes of government, Covid, Ukraine, tech advances - it'll take some time before the long term economic effect of Brexit can be determined. It'll be more informative to see where we are vis a vis our European peers after a couple of decades or so.
Yes, that is fair. Although I personally think our over or under performance is still likely to be dominated by that "noise" than any effect Brexit might have had. It is up to us to run an economic policy that enhances our prospects, that is more investment, less consumption, better infrastructure, more focused education and skills, better productivity, a better balance of payments, a more efficient housing market, etc etc. etc. All of these, for good or ill, will have confounding effects.
However, Tim Pool, a gullible American, says he didn't know it was the Kremlin who suddenly started paying him $100,000 per episode of his show.
A man that incurious could easily be a British government minister responsible for not asking questions about the Post Office or high rise flats, let alone how goods get to and from the continent.
The real victim here is the Russian government. Tim P. saw them coming and did them up the bugle by getting them to pay a fortune for sporadic right-wing drivel of no particular gravity, originality or insight.
Boris has done the same with Lord Rothermere. ChatGPT could phone in more interesting and better-written columns.
Anecdata: Year 5 school mums at drop off this morning complaining about the VAT on private school fees policy for the effect it will have on getting our respective state-educated children into their first choice school. General agreement that policy is done purely out of spite and that will mainly harm those in state schools. I'm slightly flabbergasted at the ease with which people in right-on suburban Manchester are now criticising Labour policy (and not just for not being left-wing enough). Also, one of the mums, who is an accountant, slightly peeved at all the work she suddenly has on her plate trying to liquidate people's assets before CGT is increased. ("what did they think the Labour Party would do?", she said, wearily).
Scaremongering about CGT is very much in an accountant's interest, of course. Friend of mine's firm has whipped their clients into a terrified frenzy, something they can resolve with faux concern and some "reasonable" fees.
If they keep it up this month the government might end up with enough tax revenue that it won't need to raise the rate.
I do actually think there's a non-negligible chance the rate itself doesn't go up. Rather there will be a number of changes to reliefs.
Employers' NI a possibility. I actually think that's not a bad idea. We have close to full employment but low productivity. A "jobs tax" that doesn't directly hit the pockets of employees but makes hiring people a bit more expensive might encourage businesses to get off their arses and invest in capital and technology. back to the debates last night, for people wanting growth in productivity rather than labour force that's a good thing.
Yes Employer's NI a real possibility, will raise lots of tax even if increased only from 13.8% to 15%. Don't forget there is no cap on Employer's NI. LAB have made no commitment not to increase EMPLOYER'S NI. They can justify it as 'we bailed you out with Furlough, now time to pay some of it back'.
It's 13.8% already ! Would just increase the gap between taxes on working people and everyone else, would also encourage more low productivity self employed nonsense (Uber, Deliveroo and so on...) as I think that lot get away without paying it.
I would say it's actually 16.8% because of the 3% pension contribution. What might be a good angle to take for the government is to increase the 3% to 5% and the 5% employee contribution to 8% over the next 4 years, that will take a lot of demand out of the services inflation figure and it will set up a generation of workers for reasonably good private pensions at 13%. There's also a world where the minimum contribution rises to 7% and 11% in the next parliamentary term and that effectively ends the question over people's income security in retirement for anyone under 40.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
Post-Left Watch @PostLeftWatch George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
Only a bounder wears a hat indoors unless you're a monarch or it involves some arcane sex game.
Or you're incredibly vain and bald as a coot.
Or you have been scarred in a nasty attack, as is the case here. I think Galloway is utterly detestable, but criticising him for wearing a hat is cheap.
Also, bald men wear hats for reasons other than vanity (generally speaking, bald men aren't big on vanity, it doesn't really go with the territory). In winter a bald head gets very cold without a hat. In summer a bald head risks sun-stroke without a hat. Hats are the bald man's friend.
However, Tim Pool, a gullible American, says he didn't know it was the Kremlin who suddenly started paying him $100,000 per episode of his show.
A man that incurious could easily be a British government minister responsible for not asking questions about the Post Office or high rise flats, let alone how goods get to and from the continent.
And yet this is a man who sees conspiracies all over the place. Except on his doorstep.
Post-Left Watch @PostLeftWatch George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
Only a bounder wears a hat indoors unless you're a monarch or it involves some arcane sex game.
Or you're incredibly vain and bald as a coot.
Or you have been scarred in a nasty attack, as is the case here. I think Galloway is utterly detestable, but criticising him for wearing a hat is cheap.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
Anecdata: Year 5 school mums at drop off this morning complaining about the VAT on private school fees policy for the effect it will have on getting our respective state-educated children into their first choice school. General agreement that policy is done purely out of spite and that will mainly harm those in state schools. I'm slightly flabbergasted at the ease with which people in right-on suburban Manchester are now criticising Labour policy (and not just for not being left-wing enough). Also, one of the mums, who is an accountant, slightly peeved at all the work she suddenly has on her plate trying to liquidate people's assets before CGT is increased. ("what did they think the Labour Party would do?", she said, wearily).
Scaremongering about CGT is very much in an accountant's interest, of course. Friend of mine's firm has whipped their clients into a terrified frenzy, something they can resolve with faux concern and some "reasonable" fees.
If they keep it up this month the government might end up with enough tax revenue that it won't need to raise the rate.
I do actually think there's a non-negligible chance the rate itself doesn't go up. Rather there will be a number of changes to reliefs.
Employers' NI a possibility. I actually think that's not a bad idea. We have close to full employment but low productivity. A "jobs tax" that doesn't directly hit the pockets of employees but makes hiring people a bit more expensive might encourage businesses to get off their arses and invest in capital and technology. back to the debates last night, for people wanting growth in productivity rather than labour force that's a good thing.
Yes Employer's NI a real possibility, will raise lots of tax even if increased only from 13.8% to 15%. Don't forget there is no cap on Employer's NI. LAB have made no commitment not to increase EMPLOYER'S NI. They can justify it as 'we bailed you out with Furlough, now time to pay some of it back'.
It's 13.8% already ! Would just increase the gap between taxes on working people and everyone else, would also encourage more low productivity self employed nonsense (Uber, Deliveroo and so on...) as I think that lot get away without paying it.
I would say it's actually 16.8% because of the 3% pension contribution. What might be a good angle to take for the government is to increase the 3% to 5% and the 5% employee contribution to 8% over the next 4 years, that will take a lot of demand out of the services inflation figure and it will set up a generation of workers for reasonably good private pensions at 13%. There's also a world where the minimum contribution rises to 7% and 11% in the next parliamentary term and that effectively ends the question over people's income security in retirement for anyone under 40.
It’s more likely that Reeves will go after the gig economy. As in employers paying more NI for contractors.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
That isn't really how genetics works.
The Boris clan does have distinctive hair though.
They have a distinctive face all round - long nose, overhanging brow, tendency to heaviness in the lower face, vikingish colouring.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
She looks nothing like him. I think given how Boris, Joe, and Rachel all look like identical Stanleys, there's very little chance of his kids not resembling him a lot more than she does.
I’m appalled.
By the suggestion that whether a story is true or not is a factor in publishing it.
What is the U.K. press coming to, if truth is important?
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Way to go missing the point by several kilometres, and doing a bit of whataboutery into the bargain.
This is about what idiot dupes / venal liars (take your pick) the US right wing commentariat are.
As far as Russia is concerned, the mixture of lame propaganda, and general incompetence that DuraAce notes, are entirely to be expected.
As for the Taliban, how did that CIA venture turn out, FFS ? Thanks a bunch, Ronnie.
Post-Left Watch @PostLeftWatch George Galloway, former RT host: "In 21 years, Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia is a glorious success story. I know the enemies don't want to hear that, but that requires them not to look at the footage, freely available, of what development is like in Russia."
Only a bounder wears a hat indoors unless you're a monarch or it involves some arcane sex game.
Or you're incredibly vain and bald as a coot.
Or you have been scarred in a nasty attack, as is the case here. I think Galloway is utterly detestable, but criticising him for wearing a hat is cheap.
Also, bald men wear hats for reasons other than vanity (generally speaking, bald men aren't big on vanity, it doesn't really go with the territory). In winter a bald head gets very cold without a hat. In summer a bald head risks sun-stroke without a hat. Hats are the bald man's friend.
In that case Galloway is undoubtedly a bald man who is vain. I couldn’t see it myself but he lapped up all the Gorgeous George stuff in his War On Want days.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
The Lib Dems are flexible.
In 2010 they ran a campaign to the left of Labour and ended up going into coalition with the Tories.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
I thought the idea of needing to chip away was tied into the idea of the ground game (lots of activists), coupled with incumbency. Of course every election your seat total starts at zero but there are still effects of having such a large majority.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
The Lib Dems are flexible.
In 2010 they ran a campaign to the left of Labour and ended up going into coalition with the Tories.
Which was the only real choice for a stable government. It didn't signify that they were that closely aligned, although I suspect Cameron and Clegg were.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
PS That same question could also be asked of Megan Whitmer in Michigan.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
Hey, the other day you posted that Kamala Harris publicly supported defunding the police, I asked you for a link but you failed to do so, any chance you could rectify that?
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Quite so. Some hypocrisy is just the human condition.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
And again, this is as much about the US right being the dupes of a foreign government as it is about the illegal activities of the foreign government (which don't 'scandalise' me, since they are entirely predictable).
"It doesn't matter since we do the same" is a pretty lame excuse for those right wing dupes.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
The Lib Dems are flexible.
In 2010 they ran a campaign to the left of Labour and ended up going into coalition with the Tories.
These are our principles, and if you don't like them we have others.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
Hey, the other day you posted that Kamala Harris publicly supported defunding the police, I asked you for a link but you failed to do so, any chance you could rectify that?
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Way to go missing the point by several kilometres, and doing a bit of whataboutery into the bargain.
This is about what idiot dupes / venal liars (take your pick) the US right wing commentariat are.
As far as Russia is concerned, the mixture of lame propaganda, and general incompetence that DuraAce notes, are entirely to be expected.
As for the Taliban, how did that CIA venture turn out, FFS ? Thanks a bunch, Ronnie.
As previously pointed out - the Taliban were created to be enemies of the Northern Alliance, who roughly mapped onto the groups the US supported.
Note that as part of the 9/11 attacks, Bin Liner and the boys murdered Ahmad Shah Massoud. Who was a pivotal leader in the opposition to the Taliban.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
The Lib Dems are flexible.
In 2010 they ran a campaign to the left of Labour and ended up going into coalition with the Tories.
Which was the only real choice for a stable government. It didn't signify that they were that closely aligned, although I suspect Cameron and Clegg were.
There was a brief convergence between the "Orange Bookers" such as Jeremy Browne and the "liberal conservatives" of the Cameron grouping which made the notion of a Coalition possible but it didn't last.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
The account of the victim in the French rape case this morning is utterly horrific.
Seriously horrific, as in you probably don’t want to read through what’s being reported in the newspapers if you’re not prepared to be in tears.
What on Earth drives a man to treat his wife like that, after decades of a seemingly normal and happy marriage?
I’ve not read the story other than headlines but was money involved?
If not, some people like to watch/or be the cuck but bloody hell.
No mention of money in today’s hearing, which has been the victim’s testimony. Husband has pleaded guilty, so I guess we have to wait for the accusations to be put to the other defendants as regard to their motives and methods.
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
Hey, the other day you posted that Kamala Harris publicly supported defunding the police, I asked you for a link but you failed to do so, any chance you could rectify that?
She supported the concept of moving police budgets to other services, but didn’t use the exact phrase that was popular back in 2020.
For example, US cities are experimenting with sending trained people out to deal with known mental health issues.
Rather than sending police, which has a high probability of an escalation into violence. Because the police are trained to dominate a situation and they find a mentally ill person not responding to orders threatening.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
And again, this is as much about the US right being the dupes of a foreign government as it is about the illegal activities of the foreign government (which don't 'scandalise' me, since they are entirely predictable).
"It doesn't matter since we do the same" is a pretty lame excuse for those right wing dupes.
Yes, that's a good point - the annoyance and outrage is mainly focused on the dupes, useful idiots and (in some cases) actual agents. Nobody is really surprised or shocked that Russia tries to do this.
Russia tends to assassinate or imprison those it suspects of acting to promote Western influence (or just anti-Putin sentiment) there.
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
I think it's an impossible task they have - their core vote base is dying off and they then need to attach 2 very political diverse and probably mutually exclusive voters (reform / Lib Dem voters) to have any chance of picking up seats.
Worse the membership is going to select a right wing leader who is likely to be completely toxic to one of those potential voter groups and who will have never been opposition before so will not know how different the job being Leader of the Opposition is.
The Tories are already just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll. This tax raising, union massive pay rise awarding, middle class private school parent hammering, right to buy ending, immigration un controlling, pensioner pneumonia causing government is already one of the worst in my lifetime
But the previous polls to that had Labour leads of 12%, 9% and 12%.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Quite so. Some hypocrisy is just the human condition.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
I recall a hilarious conversation with a very pro-Putin fellow worker (Russian) a few years back. The fact that the US had a peaceful and relaxed relationship with Canada was offensive to him.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Are Priti supporters really likely to fanny around in that fashion, especially if Kemi is closest to their views? The time to bet, imo, is not this round but once we have seen the final four perform at Conference in three or four weeks.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
The small number of MPs left actually makes this process more fascinatingly Machiavellian than during the last few leadership elections. Fewer disconnected junior MPs just swaying with the zeitgeist, more proper manoeuvring and tactics going on.
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
I think it's an impossible task they have - their core vote base is dying off and they then need to attach 2 very political diverse and probably mutually exclusive voters (reform / Lib Dem voters) to have any chance of picking up seats.
Worse the membership is going to select a right wing leader who is likely to be completely toxic to one of those potential voter groups and who will have never been opposition before so will not know how different the job being Leader of the Opposition is.
The Tories are already just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll. This tax raising, union massive pay rise awarding, middle class private school parent hammering, right to buy ending, immigration un controlling, pensioner pneumonia causing government is already one of the worst in my lifetime
But the previous polls to that had Labour leads of 12%, 9% and 12%.
Anyone know which if any pollsters have adjusted their methodologies following the election polling fail? i.e. is the BMG result partly to do with new adjustments, or a swing based on the old methodology? If it's the latter then it's a huge swing.
They should just take their data and add a few percent to Con, deduct a few off Lab and shave a couple off Ref and they'll probably be not far wrong if the last few elections are anything to go by.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Yesterday you posted nonsense that Jenrick would only get 5 transfers if Badenoch was eliminated. Now you are saying he gets zero transfers from both Tugendhat and Cleverly. What is your game?
The account of the victim in the French rape case this morning is utterly horrific.
Seriously horrific, as in you probably don’t want to read through what’s being reported in the newspapers if you’re not prepared to be in tears.
What on Earth drives a man to treat his wife like that, after decades of a seemingly normal and happy marriage?
I’ve not read the story other than headlines but was money involved?
If not, some people like to watch/or be the cuck but bloody hell.
No money. He filmed it, which is why police caught him for it and caught so many of the people involved. He had the video files in a folder called "abuse" (presumably the French version of that word) on his computer, so he knew exactly what he was doing. An exercise of power.
How many might be doing the same and not been caught?
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Yesterday you posted nonsense that Jenrick would only get 5 transfers if Badenoch was eliminated. Now you are saying he gets zero transfers from both Tugendhat and Cleverly. What is your game?
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
They both believe in excluding women from political power.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Absolutely - though as I say, I think that the LDs are the likely beneficiaries of a turn against Labour in so many of those marginals; picking up seats from both the Tories and from Labour that they missed out on last time. I would still be surprised to see Labour lose an overall majority from this position, but they could be hanging on with the both the LDs and the Tories on ~100-150 each.
I hear a lot of this from Liberal Democrats, and it seems to be wishful thinking.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
Goodness me, I'm not a Liberal Democrat. But I don't think they need to position as an alternative government to be the recipient of "neither of the above votes" and end up (however briefly) ahead of the Tories in seats.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Yesterday you posted nonsense that Jenrick would only get 5 transfers if Badenoch was eliminated. Now you are saying he gets zero transfers from both Tugendhat and Cleverly. What is your game?
The other thing missing from all the analyses I've seen is that an MP who voted for a non-Patel candidate is allowed to switch their vote. It's not AV.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Are Priti supporters really likely to fanny around in that fashion, especially if Kemi is closest to their views? The time to bet, imo, is not this round but once we have seen the final four perform at Conference in three or four weeks.
By then we'll have much more information and the odds will reflect that. Fair enough. But I'm looking for long odds now, that probably won't win, but are possible, hence my table.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Quite so. Some hypocrisy is just the human condition.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
I recall a hilarious conversation with a very pro-Putin fellow worker (Russian) a few years back. The fact that the US had a peaceful and relaxed relationship with Canada was offensive to him.
Russia, unlike the USA, is incapable of diplomacy. It can only threaten or bribe.
Sometimes the only conclusion I can draw from these stories is that the British authorities actively hate the British people and want us to come to harm
If I can try to remember back to what I felt about the last few Conservative PMs *before* they gained power:
Cameron: A good man, who was reversing the party's decline (after Howard's good work). I felt he would be a good PM.
May: I did not like aspects of her time as Home Secretary; then again, I can say that for virtually every HS. That role is somewhat of a poisoned chalice, and I viewed the fact she survived so long in that role as a positive sign of her abilities.
Johnson: Despite quite liking his character, I felt his time as MoL showed he would be a terrible PM. I was against him becoming PM from before he re-entered parliament.
Truss: She was barely on my radar before or during her PMship.
Sunak: He had an incredibly difficult task during Covid, and whatever he did could be criticised. But I could not see him being able to steady a ship that had already been sunk by his two predecessors.
The next one: I am Meh! about the lot. Not one I would want as PM; and I have no idea which might best be able to rebuild the party ready for their successor.
I think it's an impossible task they have - their core vote base is dying off and they then need to attach 2 very political diverse and probably mutually exclusive voters (reform / Lib Dem voters) to have any chance of picking up seats.
Worse the membership is going to select a right wing leader who is likely to be completely toxic to one of those potential voter groups and who will have never been opposition before so will not know how different the job being Leader of the Opposition is.
The Tories are already just 4% behind Labour on the latest poll. This tax raising, union massive pay rise awarding, middle class private school parent hammering, right to buy ending, immigration un controlling, pensioner pneumonia causing government is already one of the worst in my lifetime
But the previous polls to that had Labour leads of 12%, 9% and 12%.
Anyone know which if any pollsters have adjusted their methodologies following the election polling fail? i.e. is the BMG result partly to do with new adjustments, or a swing based on the old methodology? If it's the latter then it's a huge swing.
They should just take their data and add a few percent to Con, deduct a few off Lab and shave a couple off Ref and they'll probably be not far wrong if the last few elections are anything to go by.
Good afternoon
@JosiasJessop summary is a fair reflection of the past conservative leaders and much my thoughts as well
No matter Starmer and Reeves have been the prophets of doom and gloom and even more and Reeves first act was to take Grandma's winter fuel allowance and hand it to train drivers on about £70,000 they are in office now for 5 years and I have no idea where politics will be by then
Indeed it could be a three or even 4 way tie but frankly with my recent health scares I am just grateful to be living a day at the time with my beloved wife of 60 plus years and enjoying our family that the next GE really does not come into my thoughts
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Yesterday you posted nonsense that Jenrick would only get 5 transfers if Badenoch was eliminated. Now you are saying he gets zero transfers from both Tugendhat and Cleverly. What is your game?
No Tory MP among the 20 backbenchers selected in the draw to introduce Private Members Bills. Did they not enter? There are four LibDems on the list and one TUV, the rest are Labour.
How many Conservative backbenchers are there? Who counts? Does the LibDem front bench team count as frontbenchers or just the Official Opposition? If the latter, there would be fewer Conservative backbenchers than LibDem MPs, I guess.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Way to go missing the point by several kilometres, and doing a bit of whataboutery into the bargain.
This is about what idiot dupes / venal liars (take your pick) the US right wing commentariat are.
As far as Russia is concerned, the mixture of lame propaganda, and general incompetence that DuraAce notes, are entirely to be expected.
As for the Taliban, how did that CIA venture turn out, FFS ? Thanks a bunch, Ronnie.
As previously pointed out - the Taliban were created to be enemies of the Northern Alliance, who roughly mapped onto the groups the US supported.
Note that as part of the 9/11 attacks, Bin Liner and the boys murdered Ahmad Shah Massoud. Who was a pivotal leader in the opposition to the Taliban.
Well I have a friend who has recently been in Kabul meeting the Taliban - as in, he was there in the last few weeks - and he spoke with them and they talked happily of how the US helped them come into existence, via the CIA
And see here
“How were the Taliban formed? The group was formed in the early 1990s by Afghan mujahideen, or Islamic guerrilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–89) with the covert backing of the CIA and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI)”
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
It is a numbers game. I would however say the Tories will need a lot more to line up in order to become the biggest party and potentially be in the position to form the next government than it will take for Labour to lose its majority. A General Election is a set of 650 mini elections and the Tories suffer from far more of those seats being currently out of play than Labour, including most of London, Scotland, Wales and English cities as well as being increasingly losing their previous heartlands in the South to the Lib Dems. To put another way, there are reasons to believe Labour's vote will remain more efficient than the Tories unless something big changes.
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Are Priti supporters really likely to fanny around in that fashion, especially if Kemi is closest to their views? The time to bet, imo, is not this round but once we have seen the final four perform at Conference in three or four weeks.
By then we'll have much more information and the odds will reflect that. Fair enough. But I'm looking for long odds now, that probably won't win, but are possible, hence my table.
Not before then, we won't and they won't. Think back to Cameron beating heavy favourite David Davis. It's when they perform that perceptions change quickly, and good prices can be taken in a lagging market.
I suspect the reasoning is more along the lines of trying to ensure LR votes don't go to Le Pen in the second round of any contest. IF the second round is between Le Pen and a centrist candidate endorsed by LR, that candidate will probably win. If the run off is between Le Pen and a Melenchon-style candidate, it's quite possible LR votes will go to Le Pen.
Isn’t this for PM, chosen by the National Assembly, not for the President (chosen by 2-round national vote)?
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
It has been very widely reported. We’ve just had extensive rioting around the country in reaction to a fallacious rumour of such an incident. It is bizarre, at best, to claim that barely a murmur has been caused.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
Nate Silver on Harris leading the polls but Trump being favorite in their forecast (and the RFK effect):
"(1) Harris is slightly underperforming the model’s benchmark for a convention bounce. Harris is, in fact, polling a bit better now than before the DNC — but only a bit better, with a 3.5-point lead in our national polling average as of Sunday versus 2.3 points before the convention. The model’s baseline expectation was a bounce of more like 2 points. By the model’s logic, she’s gone from a lead of 2.3 points to a convention-bounce adjusted lead of 1.5 points. That’s not a game-changing difference, but it’s enough to show up in the bottom line.
(2) Kennedy dropping out of the race. We initially expected this to hurt Harris by 0.5 points or less, given that RFK Jr. drew more Trump voters than Harris voters but only slightly more. However, it’s plausible that the impact is larger with RFK having not just dropped out but endorsed Trump.
Given the timing of Kennedy’s announcement, this factor is all but impossible to disentangle from the convention bounce or lack thereof. Our model run on Friday, August 23 — the day just after Harris’s acceptance speech and the day that Kennedy dropped out, but before we switched over to the RFK-less version of the model — showed Harris ahead by 4.7 points in our national average. That suggested she was on her way to a typical convention bump of 2 or 2.5 points — or possibly more, given that the impact of the convention probably hadn’t yet been fully realized in the polling.
Now, our polling averages are designed to be very aggressive after big events like conventions, and maybe 4.7 points was an overestimate since it was drawn from relatively few polls. Occam’s Razor, though, is that Harris — who gave an effective speech — was on her way to a typical but not extraordinary convention bounce, and then Kennedy’s dropout/endorsement ate into those gains. I somewhat regret the framing of my story from Aug. 24, which warned that the model could be running a “little hot” on Harris because the impact of RFK hadn’t really been factored in yet, but had a headline that emphasized how there hadn’t been much change yet. If I had to do it over again, I’d instead headline the story with something that underscored the need for a wait-and-see approach.
(3) Comparatively poor polling for Harris in Pennsylvania, which is disproportionately important given Pennsylvania’s likelihood of being the pivotal state. As a result, the Electoral College forecast has swung more than the popular vote forecast."
WIthout going all Machiavellian, there is an interesting question of how much Josh Shapiro is going to push the boat out for Kamala Harris in PA - if she wins, then the chances are he has to wait until 2032 to be President at which point there would be presumably other new entrants. She loses, then he is one of the top contenders for 2028.
Hey, the other day you posted that Kamala Harris publicly supported defunding the police, I asked you for a link but you failed to do so, any chance you could rectify that?
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
That 19 year old “asylum seeker” double murdering pyscho went to TWO different schools in Dorset (as a “14 year old”) Where he threatened everyone with knives and machetes
Imagine if you had kids at those schools
It’s like HMG is actively trying to sow the seeds for a very very angry public backlash, as tempers fray over time
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
It has been very widely reported. We’ve just had extensive rioting around the country in reaction to a fallacious rumour of such an incident. It is bizarre, at best, to claim that barely a murmur has been caused.
The racists have rather blown it. They went and accidentally used up their riot over a crime committed by a Brit.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
If the rumour that Badenoch and Cleverley supporters "lent" their vote to Stride to knock out Patel is correct, then the Patel supporters might have their revenge by also voting for Stride and Tugendhat to knock out Cleverly who is on only 21 votes.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Stride being elected after something then happens to Badenoch (though a career ending scandal is a bit far fetched) would be the ultimate Yes Minister, Jim Hacker takes the reins moment
It has been very widely reported. We’ve just had extensive rioting around the country in reaction to a fallacious rumour of such an incident. It is bizarre, at best, to claim that barely a murmur has been caused.
The racists have rather blown it. They went and accidentally used up their riot over a crime committed by a Brit.
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
That 19 year old “asylum seeker” double murdering pyscho went to TWO different schools in Dorset (as a “14 year old”) Where he threatened everyone with knives and machetes
Imagine if you had kids at those schools
It’s like HMG is actively trying to sow the seeds for a very very angry public backlash, as tempers fray over time
That is why HM changed his G back in July. It was the last lot letting 'em all in and letting 'em all out.
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
That 19 year old “asylum seeker” double murdering pyscho went to TWO different schools in Dorset (as a “14 year old”) Where he threatened everyone with knives and machetes
Imagine if you had kids at those schools
It’s like HMG is actively trying to sow the seeds for a very very angry public backlash, as tempers fray over time
That is why HM changed his G back in July. It was the last lot letting 'em all in and letting 'em all out.
No. This is systemic WITHIN the Home Office and related authorities
That said, the Tories should have got a grip. And they didn’t. So you’re half right
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
It is a numbers game. I would however say the Tories will need a lot more to line up in order to become the biggest party and potentially be in the position to form the next government than it will take for Labour to lose its majority. A General Election is a set of 650 mini elections and the Tories suffer from far more of those seats being currently out of play than Labour, including most of London, Scotland, Wales and English cities as well as being increasingly losing their previous heartlands in the South to the Lib Dems. To put another way, there are reasons to believe Labour's vote will remain more efficient than the Tories unless something big changes.
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
If the next GE looks like being Tories largest party, but short of a majority, the interesting question for the Tory leader is "who would you prefer as your coalition partners, Lib Dems or Reform?"
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
Does anyone actually express moral horror in affronted tones at what the Russians or Chinese try to do, or do they express that horror at the domestic simps who do Russia and China's bidding? See Ed Snowden, Tucker etc.
But even if some politicians do, that's just how war works.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
The BCS is a survey of individuals' experience of crime, so it is completely independent of anything the police report. That's why it is very difficult (though not impossible) to manipulate. Not impossible because, like polling, you can of course phrase questions in different ways - but the BCS questions are consistent over the years. I don't know what the crime survey stats say about rape.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
Is it clear that we don't do that?
(I haven't gone to the trouble of archiving the article to be able to read all of it.)
Comments
Helen Lewis
@helenlewis
We covered why Private Eye hasn’t reported that Charlotte Owen is Boris Johnson’s secret daughter on the Page 94 podcast a few months ago. It’s because … the story isn’t true.
10:42 AM · Sep 5, 2024
The last election was unusual for the UK in terms of vote distributions but the Conservative and Labour parties despite winning only 56% of the vote still won 532 of the 633 English, Welsh and Scottish seats.
Not since the 1918 election has the combined Conservative/Labour share been so small and back then the two parties won about 60% of the vote and 430 seats (or something like that).
With so many constituencies now three way marginals (and even four way marginals in some instances), small changes in vote share will have big implications in terms of seat numbers.
It's as much hopecasting to say Starmer will win a second term at this time as to say he won't.
If you want some real comedy, put 20% for each of Labour, Conservatives, LDs and Reform and 15% for the Greens into Baxter, look at the results and try to form a Government from those numbers. Minutes of entertainment guaranteed.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
The seals you refer to are awesome. The other day I mentioned a young babysitter who did exactly the right thing, when a fire broke out. The fire was in a dryer, in a utility cupboard/room. The builder had used fire doors with the seals. So when the lad discovered the fire, and shut the door, the seals held the smoke back (mostly). Which meant the evacuation of the house was quick and easy. Also limited the damage.
I think Galloway is utterly detestable, but criticising him for wearing a hat is cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=FOx8q3eGq3g&embeds_referring_euri=https
Except on his doorstep.
You got lots of seats due to being the best ejection mechanism, with a humourous campaign that reminded people you exist.
To go further, you'd have to position yourselves as the alternative administration to Labour, and that'd mean moving to the Right to keep your existing voters and gain new ones.
By the suggestion that whether a story is true or not is a factor in publishing it.
What is the U.K. press coming to, if truth is important?
This is about what idiot dupes / venal liars (take your pick) the US right wing commentariat are.
As far as Russia is concerned, the mixture of lame propaganda, and general incompetence that DuraAce notes, are entirely to be expected.
As for the Taliban, how did that CIA venture turn out, FFS ?
Thanks a bunch, Ronnie.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
In 2010 they ran a campaign to the left of Labour and ended up going into coalition with the Tories.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/04/afghan-asylum-seeker-home-office-murder-posed-child/
https://x.com/StyledApe/status/1831343593845604373
After being vetted.
Seriously horrific, as in you probably don’t want to read through what’s being reported in the newspapers if you’re not prepared to be in tears.
What on Earth drives a man to treat his wife like that, after decades of a seemingly normal and happy marriage?
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
"It doesn't matter since we do the same" is a pretty lame excuse for those right wing dupes.
What is wrong with some men that they cannot handle a relationship ending
Rebecca Cheptegei: Ugandan Olympic marathon runner dies after being set on fire in horror petrol attack 'by ex-boyfriend'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/rebecca-cheptegei-ugandan-olympic-marathon-runner-dies-after-being-set-on-fire-in-horror-petrol-attack-by-ex-boyfriend/ar-AA1q1Bki?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=b8dcb16e434946949128ee4b2ed0317d&ei=13
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jul/30/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-false-statement-that-kamala-h/
She supported the concept of moving police budgets to other services, but didn’t use the exact phrase that was popular back in 2020.
Note that as part of the 9/11 attacks, Bin Liner and the boys murdered Ahmad Shah Massoud. Who was a pivotal leader in the opposition to the Taliban.
If not, some people like to watch/or be the cuck but bloody hell.
It might play out as follows, leaving Badenoch and Stride as last two standing. Stride is at 55 on Betfair.
Rather than sending police, which has a high probability of an escalation into violence. Because the police are trained to dominate a situation and they find a mentally ill person not responding to orders threatening.
Russia tends to assassinate or imprison those it suspects of acting to promote Western influence (or just anti-Putin sentiment) there.
They should just take their data and add a few percent to Con, deduct a few off Lab and shave a couple off Ref and they'll probably be not far wrong if the last few elections are anything to go by.
Now you are saying he gets zero transfers from both Tugendhat and Cleverly.
What is your game?
How many might be doing the same and not been caught?
But I'm looking for long odds now, that probably won't win, but are possible, hence my table.
Sometimes the only conclusion I can draw from these stories is that the British authorities actively hate the British people and want us to come to harm
@JosiasJessop summary is a fair reflection of the past conservative leaders and much my thoughts as well
No matter Starmer and Reeves have been the prophets of doom and gloom and even more and Reeves first act was to take Grandma's winter fuel allowance and hand it to train drivers on about £70,000 they are in office now for 5 years and I have no idea where politics will be by then
Indeed it could be a three or even 4 way tie but frankly with my recent health scares I am just grateful to be living a day at the time with my beloved wife of 60 plus years and enjoying our family that the next GE really does not come into my thoughts
And see here
“How were the Taliban formed? The group was formed in the early 1990s by Afghan mujahideen, or Islamic guerrilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–89) with the covert backing of the CIA and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI)”
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
Claiming “oh it was actually the Northern Alliance” is a load of bollocks and a pipeful of pretendy copium
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrlvdv83n7o
https://x.com/elysee/status/1831656036442255754
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
This photo summed up Brexit perfectly. Barnier was channelling me with going prepared.
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
Imagine if you had kids at those schools
It’s like HMG is actively trying to sow the seeds for a very very angry public backlash, as tempers fray over time
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
and related authorities
That said, the Tories should have got a grip. And they didn’t. So you’re half right
But even if some politicians do, that's just how war works.
(I haven't gone to the trouble of archiving the article to be able to read all of it.)