It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
The US announced their aircraft had been involved in supporting Israel last night but Starmer avoided the issue about UK involvement leaving in to the Ministry of Defence to release a statement
John Healey the Secretary of State for Defence posted that "they played their part" yesterday evening at about 10pm.
And it appears from the MOD, that they didn't actually do anything really (beyond deterrence).
Taking out ballistic missiles isn't doing anything - really ?
Starmer should have confirmed joint RAF action with the US in support of Israel
Why didn't he ?
Your link literally said that no target was engaged.
Do you read what you actually post ?
I think you need to revisit the wording where 'it says a wider deterrence and efforts to prevent future escalation'
Taking out ballistic missiles is part of that and has been done by the RAF previously and confirmed by Sunak
You are trying to excuse our Prime Minister remaining silent on RAF involvement when the US were open about it immediately
Did they, or did they not, "take out ballistic missiles last night" ?
It's a simple yes or no.
I understand the RAF provided intelligence, surveillance and other tracking data but on this occasion did not take out any missiles unlike previously
I apologise for my assumption, but at the same time the RAF were engaged in active operations in protecting Israel
The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier is currently in the Persian Gulf The Prince of Wales aircraft carrier was near Jersey four days ago, so may now be in the Mediterranean. If not from the Prince of Wales they would have to fly from, say, Cyprus Other than that they would need refuelling aircraft I assume if that was happening we'd know.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
The other cabinet members who received Taylor Swift freebies face a painful dilemma. Presumably they are expected to follow the PM’s lead and now hand over cash for the hospitality, especially where they took family members with them
The other cabinet members who received Taylor Swift freebies face a painful dilemma. Presumably they are expected to follow the PM’s lead and now hand over cash for the hospitality, especially where they took family members with them
Spare a thought for Bridget Phillipson. It was a hard one to turn down.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
I was a guest at high table at a dinner at a Fen Poly college during interview season a few years ago, where an undergraduate interviewee was being gossiped about for their pro-brexit views. Of course they quickly followed it by saying "of course that's not why we didn't let him in" but they would say that, wouldn't they.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
OOOOH, the things I could tell you. But I don't want OGH to get sued
The other cabinet members who received Taylor Swift freebies face a painful dilemma. Presumably they are expected to follow the PM’s lead and now hand over cash for the hospitality, especially where they took family members with them
Spare a thought for Bridget Phillipson. It was a hard one to turn down.
*struggles vainly not to make a rude allusion to turning down hard ones.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
The other cabinet members who received Taylor Swift freebies face a painful dilemma. Presumably they are expected to follow the PM’s lead and now hand over cash for the hospitality, especially where they took family members with them
Spare a thought for Bridget Phillipson. It was a hard one to turn down.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
Well let's hope so. The country needs a reputable organ of the right that you can open in public. I've made a mental note to check it out in three years or so.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.
Real crash and burn here.
I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.
In her first speech in her shadow cabinet role after the election she warned her opponent that she would "hold them to account". It's a silly phrase that reduced her role to a YouTube reaction video. Her job as a Shadow is to argue for her position and, when it conflicts, against the Govt's (Steve Baker is good on this)
She has strongly-held views that mesh with the membership and expresses them. This is one of the reasons why I bet on her. But she does not understand the roles and if she fails in her attempt I think the Conservatives will have chosen wisely, at least from their POV. @MaxPB is right.
As far as I am aware, she mentioned the minimum wage in passing as one of the burdens on small businesses (which it is), and it was seized upon by a bored media. She does seem quite prone to bold statements, and I don't support her due to her lack of policies but dismissing her entire candidature on the basis of a sensationalised quote was as ill-considered and immature as she is accused of being.
But that's why she's unsuitable, she makes those big bold statements on purpose to get into an unnecessary fight with the "establishment" or whatever her latest target is. When she was fighting the men in dresses trying t get into women's spaces it worked for her because it was such an obviously stupid idea that the big bold statement approach worked and people supported her. It doesn't work on policies like the minimum wage, maternity leave or even joking about civil servants not doing their jobs for her because they hate the Tories and Tory policies because those arguments need a lot more thinking and a lot more than a simple statement or joke to win people over.
In all cases she might have had a valid point at some level, for example Labour have been talking about removing the age ramp on the minimum wage which is probably detrimental to young people who will be priced out of a lot of jobs at the start of their careers. For maternity pay there might be a case to look at how the government can assist in making it easier for smaller businesses to support their employees and businesses better when women they employ need to take time off to raise their families. Wrt the civil service she could have made a point that there is an inherent conflict of interest with the civil service being so heavily unionised and those unions supporting the Labour party and assisting them to get elected which can incentivise them to block policies they don't like or think will hurt the Labour party or take actions they think will help Labour get elected etc...
Instead she made big eyecatching pronouncements and jokes so her ideas were just lost in the nonsense that followed.
Maternity pay is a very serious issue for small companies.
In the US, we had a pretty generous - by US standards - maternity policy. We had a senior employee. She got pregnant, enjoyed six months of maternity leave on half pay (while we were paying twice her salary for a contractor to cover her), and then quit on the day she was due back.
I fully support maternity pay, but for small companies, you will end up actively avoiding hiring women of a certain age, because it can be incredibly expensive. Worse, it encourages dishonesty, which benefits nobody. What we should have done - and which would have saved us a fortune - was given her a three month goodbye bonus when she left. She would have been in the same situation, and we would have therefore avoided paying a fortune for a contractor to cover her, and could have gone straight to hiring a full time replacement.
I've heard of companies having tie ins and clawbacks for those who do that, my wife's company basically requires those coming back from mat leave to hang around for a year or the company can clawback some portion they paid over the statutory minimum which for her company was 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay for both of our kids.
I think that's probably a fair compromise for those who offer over and above though I'm not sure how much legal standing it would have.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
Take pity on the poor chap. Were about to have crossover where the Tories will suffer less from 5 years of Starmerdom and the misery and aching grief will be Labours.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
Since our last Swing State Project Survey in August, millions of dollars in advertising have been spent, a highly anticipated presidential debate has occurred, and there was another assassination attempt on Trump’s life. However, these significant events had little impact on the overall horse race in the battleground states.
Our August survey also found Harris with a narrow lead overall (48% to 47%) and leading or tied with Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states.
Underneath the topline numbers, though, there have been some significant shifts, most notably Trump’s slipping advantage on his two strongest issues — inflation and immigration. However, Harris has seen some slippage of her own: as her lead among independent voters has shrunk from eight points this summer to two points in September.
However, for the first time ever, a plurality of swing state voters now think that a Democrat will win the presidential election. This month, 46% of voters think Harris will win, compared to 39% who think it will be Trump. That represents an 11-point swing in Harris’ favor since August, and suggests that Harris has been successful in presenting herself as a serious candidate, while Trump’s attempts to portray her as unable to do the job have not been effective.
There’s also been a marked drop in the number of swing state voters who are undecided or are planning to vote third party (from 10% in August to 5% now). Those voters, who are younger and more diverse than the electorate as a whole, are deeply pessimistic about the state of inflation (70% think it’s getting worse), and overwhelmingly trust Trump more than Harris on the economy. However, they also deeply dislike Trump’s style and behavior. The question isn’t just who they will ultimately support this November, but whether these more infrequent voters come out to vote at all.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
If the highly placed source is who is indicated, going to town on Kemi doesn’t look particularly impartial.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
Take pity on the poor chap. Were about to have crossover where the Tories will suffer less from 5 years of Starmerdom and the misery and aching grief will be Labours.
There's an interesting point there: *If* the Conservatives can elect a sane leader and start acting sensibly (I know, a big conditional...) then they might prefer five years of a chaotic Labour administration. And it's certainly been chaotic so far.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
If the highly placed source is who is indicated, going to town on Kemi doesn’t look particularly impartial.
Kemi was originally Gove's protégé until they fell out over something-or-other. It's hard to keep up.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Lib Dem voters they will lose other voters.
Of course if we add numbers to these sentences it becomes clear where the fishing is best.
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
Since our last Swing State Project Survey in August, millions of dollars in advertising have been spent, a highly anticipated presidential debate has occurred, and there was another assassination attempt on Trump’s life. However, these significant events had little impact on the overall horse race in the battleground states.
Our August survey also found Harris with a narrow lead overall (48% to 47%) and leading or tied with Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states.
Underneath the topline numbers, though, there have been some significant shifts, most notably Trump’s slipping advantage on his two strongest issues — inflation and immigration. However, Harris has seen some slippage of her own: as her lead among independent voters has shrunk from eight points this summer to two points in September.
However, for the first time ever, a plurality of swing state voters now think that a Democrat will win the presidential election. This month, 46% of voters think Harris will win, compared to 39% who think it will be Trump. That represents an 11-point swing in Harris’ favor since August, and suggests that Harris has been successful in presenting herself as a serious candidate, while Trump’s attempts to portray her as unable to do the job have not been effective.
There’s also been a marked drop in the number of swing state voters who are undecided or are planning to vote third party (from 10% in August to 5% now). Those voters, who are younger and more diverse than the electorate as a whole, are deeply pessimistic about the state of inflation (70% think it’s getting worse), and overwhelmingly trust Trump more than Harris on the economy. However, they also deeply dislike Trump’s style and behavior. The question isn’t just who they will ultimately support this November, but whether these more infrequent voters come out to vote at all.
If that pans out it would mean the GOP's advantage in the translation of PV to EC has gone. Been reversed even.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
If the highly placed source is who is indicated, going to town on Kemi doesn’t look particularly impartial.
Kemi was originally Gove's protégé until they fell out over something-or-other. It's hard to keep up.
Gove is a notorious gossip and plotter. He just cannot resist.
How much bears any resemblance to the truth and how much is sourced in the Andes, who knows.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
I think they would find it hard to lose any more voters to their left than they lost in this GE. OK, it’s entirely possible they go into terminal decline and their coalition splinters even further, but who was the 2024 Tory voter? Were they really concerned enough about a rightward shift to decamp to the *checks notes* Liberal Democrats? It feels that most of those that would have jumped ship in that direction probably already did in 2024.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
OOOOH, the things I could tell you. But I don't want OGH to get sued
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
If the highly placed source is who is indicated, going to town on Kemi doesn’t look particularly impartial.
Kemi was originally Gove's protégé until they fell out over something-or-other. It's hard to keep up.
I know - TSE has told us he had an affair with a married friend of hers. And then when she objects, apparently sees fit to drip poison about her into the ears of suggestible journalists who now work for him. Lovely bloke.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Reform only got 4 million votes which means JRM thinks they were all lost from the Conservatives. That seems unlikely. (4,117,610 to be precise.)
Reform got half a million more votes than the LibDems but 67 fewer seats. JRM needs to factor FPTP into his thinking.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
The counterpoint there is that those 4 million reformers may only have voted Tory in 2019 because of Boris. in which case the biggest factor for the tories getting those voters is Farage disappearing...
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
OOOOH, the things I could tell you. But I don't want OGH to get sued
Who is Gove backing for leadership, any idea?
Not the foggiest
I was in the Electric today, the W11 version of Soho House. Gotta admit the beauty quotient is higher at lunch than the Grouch
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
I’m sure there is a famously sweat free Duke who paid a lot of money to make amends for having done nothing wrong relatively recently.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
It's quite a moment. This great, venerable, honoured, prestigious, battleworn, revered, world-changing, and almighty old bastion of the British right is finally getting a new leader. Yes, the Spectator is changing editor
Also, the Tories are doing something
Is it going to get any better?
Under the intellectual genius and creative titan that is Michael Gove (also a surprisingly handsome and debonair man in the flesh, if you meet him for, say, lunch at the Groucho)? Yes
That's the place with the posh fish and gossip so vague as to be useless, right?
Seems the "highly placed source" has been firmed up a bit though?
If the highly placed source is who is indicated, going to town on Kemi doesn’t look particularly impartial.
Kemi was originally Gove's protégé until they fell out over something-or-other. It's hard to keep up.
I know - TSE has told us he had an affair with a married friend of hers. And then when she objects, apparently sees fit to drip poison about her into the ears of suggestible journalists who now work for him. Lovely bloke.
I did not have an affair with a married friend of Kemi Badenoch.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground) 0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground) 1.7 million Con to sofa 1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
But to really chase that vote they need to become fair and square a party of the populist xenophobic right, majoring on anti-immigration and nativist identity politics. That's a big decision to take. I think they'll baulk at it, regardless of whether it's Jenrick or Cleverly. And I hope they do.
I think Starmer has somehow managed to make Griftgate even WORSE, and continued its presence in the news
Yep - he's now created a question that is going to be very hard to answer - Why are those freebies different from the other ones?
Starmer's repeated his original error in taking freebies. He's done something legally correct but politically unwise.
It would have been better to brazen it out or to pay the lot back. Any middle ground opens up the question of why was X different to Y = please explain in detail.
I can see the issue of MP freebies being rapidly fixed in the next few months.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
Does this mean that Keith “Kid Starver” Starmer is an alt-right extremist obsessed with a non-existent story?
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
Conservatives believe in being in government. Sounds cynical, but it's one of the more admirable things a party can do, because it forces them to listen a bit to the electorate.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground) 0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground) 1.7 million Con to sofa 1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
What is the betting he is driving this time next year regardless? Decent odds on I would guess, not sure what the answer is for these types who just ignore the judgments, aside from the expensive option of jail. Would like to see extremely punitive fines as an option if they have any assets.
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground) 0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground) 1.7 million Con to sofa 1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
Sofa looks fertile ground then.
Fortunately, we're before the lagershed, or the temptation of to do an off-colour JD Vance joke would be hard to resist.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.
(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.
Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".
Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.
Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
Why would you apply land value tax to people? You would apply it to land and whoever owns the land pays the tax.
Whether you like it or not the country has running costs. Defence, law and order etc and whatever else Parliament has decreed.
The country only has a finite amount of land, if you own a portion of this countries land you should pay a portion of the running costs of the country.
That's not communism it's perfectly liberal.
You seem to think "quiet enjoyment" should for some reason be taxed less than other enjoyment. I would rather let people do as they please with what they own.
Land should be taxed the same whether the owner chooses to quietly enjoy it, or chooses to work it, or chooses to build on it, or chooses to sell it and the new owner takes responsibility for paying the costs.
Why are you opposed to letting people do as they will with what they own? The state should not get involved, it should take its cut of funding for the running costs of the country but let the owner do as he, she or they pleases to do with it.
FWIW my wife and daughter have relocated abroad for her work.
As a result I am in a 5 bedroom house on my own. The sensible thing to do would be to sell and move to a flat. More fun and less work plus frees up housing stock.
But the stamp duty is such a huge cost that I just can’t get past why I would volunteer to transfer that value to the taxman
Indeed: stamp duty discourages trading down and therefore worsens the housing shortage.
Abolishing both stamp duty and landlord benefit would improve the efficiency of transfer of UK housing at the stroke of a pen.
They are more or less identical too.
In the United Kingdom, the government is expected to spend around £15.6 billion on housing benefits in 2023/24. Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) raised £15.4bn for the government in the 2022/23 financial year , a 9% increase on the £14.1bn raised in 2021/22.
I've never understood the SDLT 'discourages downsizing' argument - it is only paid on buying property, not selling.
The truth is that most people don't want to downsize if they can possibly avoid it. Getting rid of stamp duty won't change that.
I sense this is right. It's a factor in staying put but not usually the main one, I'd have thought.
But anyway I support transaction taxers AND asset taxes. For me it isn't an either/or.
People who moved from the provinces to London in their youth should be heavily penalised if they don't move back out again in retirement. They need to make way for the next generation of strivers.
London needs to be able to grow to its natural size so that anyone, who wants to live there, can, however old they are.
Including people who want to move there from the rest of the world?
Why not simply build a big wall around London, say at the M25? Make London into Hong Kong or Dubai or the old free ports of the Hanseatic League.
Brits are allowed to live in either London or Rest of Britain (RoB). Immigrants are only allowed to live in London.
Everyone is happy.
Even better if Londoners are kept inside the wall.
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
What is the betting he is driving this time next year regardless? Decent odds on I would guess, not sure what the answer is for these types who just ignore the judgments, aside from the expensive option of jail. Would like to see extremely punitive fines as an option if they have any assets.
Car gets scrapped, and any other vehicle they are found driving.
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
What is the betting he is driving this time next year regardless? Decent odds on I would guess, not sure what the answer is for these types who just ignore the judgments, aside from the expensive option of jail. Would like to see extremely punitive fines as an option if they have any assets.
Car gets scrapped, and any other vehicle they are found driving.
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
What would @Anabobazina do if he received a brown envelope containing cash?
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
What is the betting he is driving this time next year regardless? Decent odds on I would guess, not sure what the answer is for these types who just ignore the judgments, aside from the expensive option of jail. Would like to see extremely punitive fines as an option if they have any assets.
Car gets scrapped, and any other vehicle they are found driving.
But there is no one actually checking. We need a future crimes division which would know a banned driver who ignores bans is odds on to be driving illegally and checks them out from time to time. Or something.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground) 0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground) 1.7 million Con to sofa 1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
I think Starmer has somehow managed to make Griftgate even WORSE, and continued its presence in the news
Yep - he's now created a question that is going to be very hard to answer - Why are those freebies different from the other ones?
Starmer's repeated his original error in taking freebies. He's done something legally correct but politically unwise.
It would have been better to brazen it out or to pay the lot back. Any middle ground opens up the question of why was X different to Y = please explain in detail.
I can see the issue of MP freebies being rapidly fixed in the next few months.
Starmer is proposing new rules aiui. Politicians are always fighting the last war. We have a register of members' interests full of trivia like £500 appearance fees for panel shows and who loves Taylor Swift the most. This is tittle-tattle, not an important weapon against corruption.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
Arguably many of the votes they lost to Reform were not because they were not right wing enough (though that is a valid criticism) but because they were rubbish at governing, and voters casting around for a not-tory party to vote for settled first on Reform out of antipathy to Lab and LD. They could win many of these back by being just, you know, better.
(Personally I remain convinced that the Sunak era "talk right but don't act right" strategy was exactly the wrong one.
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
This is very common aiui. Certainly police told me about it decades ago. People drive to court because that's how they get anywhere, and do not appreciate they will not be allowed to drive home again.
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.
Real crash and burn here.
I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.
In her first speech in her shadow cabinet role after the election she warned her opponent that she would "hold them to account". It's a silly phrase that reduced her role to a YouTube reaction video. Her job as a Shadow is to argue for her position and, when it conflicts, against the Govt's (Steve Baker is good on this)
She has strongly-held views that mesh with the membership and expresses them. This is one of the reasons why I bet on her. But she does not understand the roles and if she fails in her attempt I think the Conservatives will have chosen wisely, at least from their POV. @MaxPB is right.
As far as I am aware, she mentioned the minimum wage in passing as one of the burdens on small businesses (which it is), and it was seized upon by a bored media. She does seem quite prone to bold statements, and I don't support her due to her lack of policies but dismissing her entire candidature on the basis of a sensationalised quote was as ill-considered and immature as she is accused of being.
But that's why she's unsuitable, she makes those big bold statements on purpose to get into an unnecessary fight with the "establishment" or whatever her latest target is. When she was fighting the men in dresses trying t get into women's spaces it worked for her because it was such an obviously stupid idea that the big bold statement approach worked and people supported her. It doesn't work on policies like the minimum wage, maternity leave or even joking about civil servants not doing their jobs for her because they hate the Tories and Tory policies because those arguments need a lot more thinking and a lot more than a simple statement or joke to win people over.
In all cases she might have had a valid point at some level, for example Labour have been talking about removing the age ramp on the minimum wage which is probably detrimental to young people who will be priced out of a lot of jobs at the start of their careers. For maternity pay there might be a case to look at how the government can assist in making it easier for smaller businesses to support their employees and businesses better when women they employ need to take time off to raise their families. Wrt the civil service she could have made a point that there is an inherent conflict of interest with the civil service being so heavily unionised and those unions supporting the Labour party and assisting them to get elected which can incentivise them to block policies they don't like or think will hurt the Labour party or take actions they think will help Labour get elected etc...
Instead she made big eyecatching pronouncements and jokes so her ideas were just lost in the nonsense that followed.
Maternity pay is a very serious issue for small companies.
In the US, we had a pretty generous - by US standards - maternity policy. We had a senior employee. She got pregnant, enjoyed six months of maternity leave on half pay (while we were paying twice her salary for a contractor to cover her), and then quit on the day she was due back.
I fully support maternity pay, but for small companies, you will end up actively avoiding hiring women of a certain age, because it can be incredibly expensive. Worse, it encourages dishonesty, which benefits nobody. What we should have done - and which would have saved us a fortune - was given her a three month goodbye bonus when she left. She would have been in the same situation, and we would have therefore avoided paying a fortune for a contractor to cover her, and could have gone straight to hiring a full time replacement.
I've heard of companies having tie ins and clawbacks for those who do that, my wife's company basically requires those coming back from mat leave to hang around for a year or the company can clawback some portion they paid over the statutory minimum which for her company was 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay for both of our kids.
I think that's probably a fair compromise for those who offer over and above though I'm not sure how much legal standing it would have.
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.
Real crash and burn here.
I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.
In her first speech in her shadow cabinet role after the election she warned her opponent that she would "hold them to account". It's a silly phrase that reduced her role to a YouTube reaction video. Her job as a Shadow is to argue for her position and, when it conflicts, against the Govt's (Steve Baker is good on this)
She has strongly-held views that mesh with the membership and expresses them. This is one of the reasons why I bet on her. But she does not understand the roles and if she fails in her attempt I think the Conservatives will have chosen wisely, at least from their POV. @MaxPB is right.
As far as I am aware, she mentioned the minimum wage in passing as one of the burdens on small businesses (which it is), and it was seized upon by a bored media. She does seem quite prone to bold statements, and I don't support her due to her lack of policies but dismissing her entire candidature on the basis of a sensationalised quote was as ill-considered and immature as she is accused of being.
But that's why she's unsuitable, she makes those big bold statements on purpose to get into an unnecessary fight with the "establishment" or whatever her latest target is. When she was fighting the men in dresses trying t get into women's spaces it worked for her because it was such an obviously stupid idea that the big bold statement approach worked and people supported her. It doesn't work on policies like the minimum wage, maternity leave or even joking about civil servants not doing their jobs for her because they hate the Tories and Tory policies because those arguments need a lot more thinking and a lot more than a simple statement or joke to win people over.
In all cases she might have had a valid point at some level, for example Labour have been talking about removing the age ramp on the minimum wage which is probably detrimental to young people who will be priced out of a lot of jobs at the start of their careers. For maternity pay there might be a case to look at how the government can assist in making it easier for smaller businesses to support their employees and businesses better when women they employ need to take time off to raise their families. Wrt the civil service she could have made a point that there is an inherent conflict of interest with the civil service being so heavily unionised and those unions supporting the Labour party and assisting them to get elected which can incentivise them to block policies they don't like or think will hurt the Labour party or take actions they think will help Labour get elected etc...
Instead she made big eyecatching pronouncements and jokes so her ideas were just lost in the nonsense that followed.
Maternity pay is a very serious issue for small companies.
In the US, we had a pretty generous - by US standards - maternity policy. We had a senior employee. She got pregnant, enjoyed six months of maternity leave on half pay (while we were paying twice her salary for a contractor to cover her), and then quit on the day she was due back.
I fully support maternity pay, but for small companies, you will end up actively avoiding hiring women of a certain age, because it can be incredibly expensive. Worse, it encourages dishonesty, which benefits nobody. What we should have done - and which would have saved us a fortune - was given her a three month goodbye bonus when she left. She would have been in the same situation, and we would have therefore avoided paying a fortune for a contractor to cover her, and could have gone straight to hiring a full time replacement.
I've heard of companies having tie ins and clawbacks for those who do that, my wife's company basically requires those coming back from mat leave to hang around for a year or the company can clawback some portion they paid over the statutory minimum which for her company was 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay for both of our kids.
I think that's probably a fair compromise for those who offer over and above though I'm not sure how much legal standing it would have.
Less than a month ago she was leading with around 45%.
Real crash and burn here.
I think as soon as her take on the minimum wage was publicised we should all have recognised she was out of the running. I really hope that she learns from this experience and matures her thought process and doesn't just say the first thing that pops into her brain because she thinks people will react to it, leave that to YouTube personalities and podcasters.
In her first speech in her shadow cabinet role after the election she warned her opponent that she would "hold them to account". It's a silly phrase that reduced her role to a YouTube reaction video. Her job as a Shadow is to argue for her position and, when it conflicts, against the Govt's (Steve Baker is good on this)
She has strongly-held views that mesh with the membership and expresses them. This is one of the reasons why I bet on her. But she does not understand the roles and if she fails in her attempt I think the Conservatives will have chosen wisely, at least from their POV. @MaxPB is right.
As far as I am aware, she mentioned the minimum wage in passing as one of the burdens on small businesses (which it is), and it was seized upon by a bored media. She does seem quite prone to bold statements, and I don't support her due to her lack of policies but dismissing her entire candidature on the basis of a sensationalised quote was as ill-considered and immature as she is accused of being.
But that's why she's unsuitable, she makes those big bold statements on purpose to get into an unnecessary fight with the "establishment" or whatever her latest target is. When she was fighting the men in dresses trying t get into women's spaces it worked for her because it was such an obviously stupid idea that the big bold statement approach worked and people supported her. It doesn't work on policies like the minimum wage, maternity leave or even joking about civil servants not doing their jobs for her because they hate the Tories and Tory policies because those arguments need a lot more thinking and a lot more than a simple statement or joke to win people over.
In all cases she might have had a valid point at some level, for example Labour have been talking about removing the age ramp on the minimum wage which is probably detrimental to young people who will be priced out of a lot of jobs at the start of their careers. For maternity pay there might be a case to look at how the government can assist in making it easier for smaller businesses to support their employees and businesses better when women they employ need to take time off to raise their families. Wrt the civil service she could have made a point that there is an inherent conflict of interest with the civil service being so heavily unionised and those unions supporting the Labour party and assisting them to get elected which can incentivise them to block policies they don't like or think will hurt the Labour party or take actions they think will help Labour get elected etc...
Instead she made big eyecatching pronouncements and jokes so her ideas were just lost in the nonsense that followed.
Maternity pay is a very serious issue for small companies.
In the US, we had a pretty generous - by US standards - maternity policy. We had a senior employee. She got pregnant, enjoyed six months of maternity leave on half pay (while we were paying twice her salary for a contractor to cover her), and then quit on the day she was due back.
I fully support maternity pay, but for small companies, you will end up actively avoiding hiring women of a certain age, because it can be incredibly expensive. Worse, it encourages dishonesty, which benefits nobody. What we should have done - and which would have saved us a fortune - was given her a three month goodbye bonus when she left. She would have been in the same situation, and we would have therefore avoided paying a fortune for a contractor to cover her, and could have gone straight to hiring a full time replacement.
I've heard of companies having tie ins and clawbacks for those who do that, my wife's company basically requires those coming back from mat leave to hang around for a year or the company can clawback some portion they paid over the statutory minimum which for her company was 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay for both of our kids.
I think that's probably a fair compromise for those who offer over and above though I'm not sure how much legal standing it would have.
Enhanced or discretionary maternity pay is frequently clawed back if the employee doesn’t return to work. Even local councils do this. Preston council, you have to return to work for at least 3 months (may be more).
It’s a fair compromise, but still open to abuse. You accrue holiday pay while on maternity leave so could ‘return’ , utilise holidays then go off sick etc.
You can’t force people to work and in most cases employers might as well come to a fair compromise. I’ve never come accross a small employer offering significantly enhanced maternity pay.
Statutory maternity pay is effectively covered by the government anyway when doing monthly PAYE return, so the cost isn’t that to small employers, it’s the general disruption, having to keep a job open and possibly make reasonable adjustments when they return.
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
PA Media @PA · 21m #BreakingNews Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming Prime Minister, Downing Street has said
PA Media @PA The Prime Minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer
What a strange decision for a man who has done nothing wrong to take.
Indeed. And £6k in just three months.
There might be another issue for the Labour Party here; now he has paid back these 'gifts', will other Labour ministers and backbenchers be called on to do likewise?
(Yes, and this applies to the other parties as well. But they're not in power.)
The line he appears to be drawing is that accepting bribes when he's nailed on to be the PM is fine, but in retrospect he should have stopped taking them when he became PM, which fortunately saves him an awful lot of back-rent.
Thoughts and prayers for @Anabobazina , who is convinced that there was absolutely nothing wrong with these gifts...
There isn't. All politicians of all parties can and do accept gifts, as anyone would know did they bother to spend just five minutes reading the register of interests. The fact that Sir Keir has paid a few back in the face of a hypocritical media shitstorm doesn't change that. The guy just wants to move on. And who can blame him?
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
What is the betting he is driving this time next year regardless? Decent odds on I would guess, not sure what the answer is for these types who just ignore the judgments, aside from the expensive option of jail. Would like to see extremely punitive fines as an option if they have any assets.
Car gets scrapped, and any other vehicle they are found driving.
But there is no one actually checking. We need a future crimes division which would know a banned driver who ignores bans is odds on to be driving illegally and checks them out from time to time. Or something.
Apparently road traffic policing has been cut by about half since 2010. That's part of the reason why you have problems with crime like this, which can't be monitored with cameras/ANPR.
I also think that's why the number of slight injuries has fallen quite a bit more than fatal/serious injuries. The very high risk drivers (like this man) aren't being monitored closely enough.
I think Starmer has somehow managed to make Griftgate even WORSE, and continued its presence in the news
Yep - he's now created a question that is going to be very hard to answer - Why are those freebies different from the other ones?
Starmer's repeated his original error in taking freebies. He's done something legally correct but politically unwise.
It would have been better to brazen it out or to pay the lot back. Any middle ground opens up the question of why was X different to Y = please explain in detail.
I can see the issue of MP freebies being rapidly fixed in the next few months.
Starmer is proposing new rules aiui. Politicians are always fighting the last war. We have a register of members' interests full of trivia like £500 appearance fees for panel shows and who loves Taylor Swift the most. This is tittle-tattle, not an important weapon against corruption.
Meanwhile who is going to be paying for the £150k bungs to have a chance to be LOTO?
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
Conservatives believe in being in government. Sounds cynical, but it's one of the more admirable things a party can do, because it forces them to listen a bit to the electorate.
True, but the electorate do eventually seem to notice if you are just jumping around saying 'me, me' without being very good at actually governing.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
Arguably many of the votes they lost to Reform were not because they were not right wing enough (though that is a valid criticism) but because they were rubbish at governing, and voters casting around for a not-tory party to vote for settled first on Reform out of antipathy to Lab and LD. They could win many of these back by being just, you know, better.
(Personally I remain convinced that the Sunak era "talk right but don't act right" strategy was exactly the wrong one.
The votes they lost to Reform, were they Tory voters anyway or just people who lent their vote to the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit over the line ?
Are they going to chase voters who are not natural Tories ?
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground) 0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground) 1.7 million Con to sofa 1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Jenrick’s abilities do remain to be seen.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Because for every Reform voter they could win back, they would potentially lose another?
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
Arguably many of the votes they lost to Reform were not because they were not right wing enough (though that is a valid criticism) but because they were rubbish at governing, and voters casting around for a not-tory party to vote for settled first on Reform out of antipathy to Lab and LD. They could win many of these back by being just, you know, better.
(Personally I remain convinced that the Sunak era "talk right but don't act right" strategy was exactly the wrong one.
The votes they lost to Reform, were they Tory voters anyway or just people who lent their vote to the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit over the line ?
Are they going to chase voters who are not natural Tories ?
The issue for the Tories is that these voters are not natural Thatcherites, to put it mildly.
They believe in low immigration, they don’t like ‘progressive’ policies or identity politics, a number are climate sceptics and they feel left behind.
What a lot of them also believe in is a well funded NHS, a strong state education system, good infrastructure and transport, taxing the very wealthy etc etc.
This is a square that it is difficult for the Tories (and Farage, frankly) to circle. They can swing right and talk about the first set of beliefs easily. They find it very difficult to talk to the second set of beliefs. Boris got it. Sunak and Truss did not.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
Most of the votes the Tories lost to other parties at the election were to Reform.
Jenrick seems miles ahead. Unless a skeleton or two tumbles out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
Dan Hodges think the Tories need to double down. Take a step back and I'm struggling to see what Cleverly would want to change from the Sunak platform, apart from maybe not even pretending they want to reduce immigration.
He's a left leaning centrist who wants the Tories to select the most left leaning centrist candidate - see also most of PB. The psephological garbage they dress it up in is neither here nor there.
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Reform voters they will lose other voters.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
The problem the Tories have is that if they head off down the path to attract Lib Dem voters they will lose other voters.
Of course if we add numbers to these sentences it becomes clear where the fishing is best.
They need to attract Reform voters in Labour seats but they need to attract LD voters in LD seats.
Comments
Also, the Tories are doing something
A Type 45 could intercept ABMs - but would have to be in a direct line between Iran and Israel to do so.
Oh hang on, I thought that was a VI but it's not is it? Should have read the small print lol!
Rachel trying to soften her image ahead of the budget?
@Peston
The other cabinet members who received Taylor Swift freebies face a painful dilemma. Presumably they are expected to follow the PM’s lead and now hand over cash for the hospitality, especially where they took family members with them
Neil Record is the chair of the climate science denial group Net Zero Watch…
https://x.com/WritesBright/status/1841460284390621444
@DPJHodges
·
1h
The hustings confirmed the choice facing the Tory party over its next leader isn’t really a choice at all. They can lose the next five years to an orgy of self-recrimination and self-indulgent infighting, or they can elect James Cleverly
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1841500636736614887
I think that's probably a fair compromise for those who offer over and above though I'm not sure how much legal standing it would have.
And I don't think Jenrick is up to the task in the first place...
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/swing-state-polling-finds-deadlocked-presidential
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
Since our last Swing State Project Survey in August, millions of dollars in advertising have been spent, a highly anticipated presidential debate has occurred, and there was another assassination attempt on Trump’s life. However, these significant events had little impact on the overall horse race in the battleground states.
Our August survey also found Harris with a narrow lead overall (48% to 47%) and leading or tied with Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states.
Underneath the topline numbers, though, there have been some significant shifts, most notably Trump’s slipping advantage on his two strongest issues — inflation and immigration. However, Harris has seen some slippage of her own: as her lead among independent voters has shrunk from eight points this summer to two points in September.
However, for the first time ever, a plurality of swing state voters now think that a Democrat will win the presidential election. This month, 46% of voters think Harris will win, compared to 39% who think it will be Trump. That represents an 11-point swing in Harris’ favor since August, and suggests that Harris has been successful in presenting herself as a serious candidate, while Trump’s attempts to portray her as unable to do the job have not been effective.
There’s also been a marked drop in the number of swing state voters who are undecided or are planning to vote third party (from 10% in August to 5% now). Those voters, who are younger and more diverse than the electorate as a whole, are deeply pessimistic about the state of inflation (70% think it’s getting worse), and overwhelmingly trust Trump more than Harris on the economy. However, they also deeply dislike Trump’s style and behavior. The question isn’t just who they will ultimately support this November, but whether these more infrequent voters come out to vote at all.
Of course if we add numbers to these sentences it becomes clear where the fishing is best.
How much bears any resemblance to the truth and how much is sourced in the Andes, who knows.
However, according to Rees Mogg's very good conference Q&A (and whilst not unbiased, he wouldn't have given false statistics that could have been diaproven easily), The Tories lost 4 million voters to Reform, and 700,000 to Labour and the Lib Dems combined. They were also heavily damaged by stay at home Tories. Split that half and half, why would they court 350,000 Lib Dems at the expense of 4 million Reformers? When it was clearly Reform that made the difference in so many seats?
Reform got half a million more votes than the LibDems but 67 fewer seats. JRM needs to factor FPTP into his thinking.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-election
"2019 Con vote:
53% Con
24% Ref
12% Lab
7% LD
2% Grn
2% Oth"
What do they actually believe in? I don't care what the best gaming strategy is.
I was in the Electric today, the W11 version of Soho House. Gotta admit the beauty quotient is higher at lunch than the Grouch
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1841444586645852625
Their main hope of success lies with Labour failure rather than the Tories turning things around.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24626078.disqualified-darlington-driver-drove-home-court-ban/
Man arrested driving home from court where he had been given a driving ban...
https://x.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1812751453842190571
2.7 million Con to Ref
1.2 million Con to Lab (count double in battleground)
0.8 million Con to LD (count double in the battleground)
1.7 million Con to sofa
1.4 million Con to the choir invisible
I can see the issue of MP freebies being rapidly fixed in the next few months.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1841523659149562362
He has just made the story continue and Lord Alli being investigated for non disclosure of interests just adds to the turmoil at no 10
On Starmer’s repayment of more than £6000 of gifts, these are all gifts he and his wife Victoria received since the election. His argument - which eluded me when listening to him just now in Brussels, but I have subsequently twigged - is that the ethics of receiving gifts are different for a PM who wants to restore confidence in politics than for a leader of the opposition. So on this version only post 4 July gifts need to be repaid, excluding the tickets at his beloved Arsenal - because going to the Emirates is ingrained in his life and it’s not his fault that for safety reasons he can’t sit in his normal seats. I am told however he doesn’t believe his ministerial colleagues need to repay their post-election freebies, including the Taylor Swift tickets, because (implicitly) they are lesser mortals: he leads, they don’t have to follow
https://x.com/Peston/status/1841526734266503638
SKS is trying to dance on the head of a pin and it ain't going to work...
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-eye-watering-40-billion-euro-budget-cut-2025-eu-commission-debt-michel-barnier/
(40bn spending cuts, 20bn tax rises)
https://youtu.be/jOSsrcKHujM?si=-N8t_CUShtpF9WMX
(Personally I remain convinced that the Sunak era "talk right but don't act right" strategy was exactly the wrong one.
Just watching her now on catch-up.
I am even more convinced she is not ready for prime time and would be well advised not to do a Hague and to lose this one gracefully.
A few more years. One of the top shadow briefs. Then maybe the time will come.
But it is not now.
They would be mad not to elect Cleverly after today.
Even local councils do this.
Preston council, you have to return to work for at least 3 months (may be more).
It’s a fair compromise, but still open to abuse.
You accrue holiday pay while on maternity leave so could ‘return’ , utilise holidays then go off sick etc.
You can’t force people to work and in most cases employers might as well come to a fair compromise.
I’ve never come accross a small employer offering significantly enhanced maternity pay.
Statutory maternity pay is effectively covered by the government anyway when doing monthly PAYE return, so the cost isn’t that to small employers, it’s the general disruption, having to keep a job open and possibly make reasonable adjustments when they return.
Another example of Kemi talking without thinking.
I also think that's why the number of slight injuries has fallen quite a bit more than fatal/serious injuries. The very high risk drivers (like this man) aren't being monitored closely enough.
Also PB Tories: Sir Keir should not have paid back the gifts.
Funny. Old. World.
If a male politician had done this he would be ridiculed from here to his humiliating defeat at the next election. And rightly so.
Are they going to chase voters who are not natural Tories ?
It just looks odd. It also prolongs the story.
The cash-obsessed PB weirdos are desperately in need of some new material.
They believe in low immigration, they don’t like ‘progressive’ policies or identity politics, a number are climate sceptics and they feel left behind.
What a lot of them also believe in is a well funded NHS, a strong state education system, good infrastructure and transport, taxing the very wealthy etc etc.
This is a square that it is difficult for the Tories (and Farage, frankly) to circle. They can swing right and talk about the first set of beliefs easily. They find it very difficult to talk to the second set of beliefs. Boris got it. Sunak and Truss did not.
And that's the problem, isn't it.