These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
Well done Sir Kier! You've alienated all the bourgeoisie who have a house, an ISA, a bank account, an Arsenal season ticket etc in a casual soundbite. You deserve a medal
You can';t include "owning a house" as capital, as you can't sell it and live off the income. But if you rent out a room(s), that's different.
Of course you can sell it and live off the income. But as a house owner-occupier part of your income in the broadest sense, is the implied rent you derive from the property. If you didn't own it you would be paying rent to the owner
Excellent. I shall charge myself £1billion rent! I am now rich!
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
Can't we just exile all cyclists to Rwanda?
Cycling is a huge spectator sport there and the World Championships will be in Kigali in 2025...
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
On the subject of the UK coast: I came across this map today. It takes a bit of looking at: basically the height of tides all around the world. Britain really does have remarkably high tides, especially on the west coast (the best coast).
I pity that mass of humanity for whom the difference between high tide and low tide is a piffling couple of metres of less. Beaches without tides are unsatisfying.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Check out Rochdae Town Hall. Grade 1 listed, one of the finest examples of Victorian gothic architecturein existence. Recently refurbished.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Anecdata. I've been jumped on today by a development company that want a deed of transfer signed before the budget. It's a small ransom strip to a new housing estate, and they are trying afaics to get all the basics in place now. They have been sitting on this for about 3-4 years with an option agreement whilst they have been talking to the farmer next door, presumably waving it around and saying "look you can't sell to anyone except us".
They are not doing it to save me CGT (it's a development company ), so it's something on their side that they need sorted in case any instant or fairly prompt changes come in. It will be around the possible extra cost vs the opportunity cost of not being able to screw the other seller down, or possibly if they want to get a Planning Application in before Planning Gain rules are tightened. As I always say: the things that matter are money and risk; I think I got that from a Lord Weinstock underling in about 1990 on a "Business Skills" course module.
I hope the Local Councils everywhere are ready for the wave of applications that are about to arrive, as the logjam possibly unwinds a little !
I'm there are people here dealing with far bigger stuff than this. A straw in the wind?
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
Fair point. In my head I was going through previous Labour chancellors: Darling (good), Brown (hugely, hugely overrated in my view but undeniably knew his stuff), Healy (very good)... But maybe they all had non-chancellory backgrounds too.
Reeves just seems so... lightweight by comparison.
Is there something Reeves has in common with Kamala (who you also don't rate) that Darling, Brown and Healy don't? I'll have a think.
Yes - they both owe their appointment to being the best woman (or in Kamala's case, best non-white woman) rather than the best candidate. (Granted by Labour's own internal tortuous logic they could probably have had a male chancellor but would then have needed a female FS and HS, or something.)
But others on here have assured me perhaps Reeves is not as lightweight as she has seemed these last few months. So we'll see.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
Piece Hall has single handedly taken Halifax to another level - the artists love and flock to the venues summer season, good size 6000 or so capacity, they are getting decent line ups. And the council's finances are being shored up pretty well by the success of the venture. There were times they wondered about demolition.
This page of a hotel's website lists the 2024 line up.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
There is no point to them, other than pretend. They are called a chicane barrier. Research indicates that it is far better for ASB to have a path that everyone can use rather than an unused one that is made difficult to use. These are several things:
1 - They are old. That looks like 1985-1995 vintage, probably contemporaneous with the building on the left with the faux wooden balcony and 2:1:2 2G window. The bollards you can see on the next bit of that are the better way to do it, and they are ~1960-1975 vintage.
2 - They are there as a sop to silly voters by silly Councillors, possibly due to advice to stop free movement the police used to give back then, or because they look like someone is doing something. Usually they go in when 2 or 3 people with a local vote complain.
3 - They are probably aimed at off-road motorbikes not cycles.
4 - They are a waste of money that could have been spent on something useful. But Councillors love pissing it away, even when we have so little.
5 - They are illegal under Equality Act 2010, and if it is a RoW under Highways Act 1980 as well. It is not a "reasonable adjustment", and we have Supreme Court level case law that lawful users may not be impeded in order to (allegedly - it doesn't work) manage ASB. ASB is a police matter, not an access matter.
6 - They are probably completely unknown to the Local Highways Authority. They never know about them, and never keep records.
7 - They are very common. I have about 1 per 100 people in my town.
8 - They can be challenged, but it is a slow process, and Councils will really drag their feet because they and voters believe the myth. It may take 1month to 3 years to "No. It stays. So sue us.".
The most effective challenge is to a Local Councillor from someone who lives there and is impeded by it regularly. It saves a lot of paper.
9 - They are a weird British thing. I have never seen anything like the petty use of these we get here in any other country.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
My thoughts:
Perhaps demographics (aging or need social care) and this currently being a Lib Dem issue? Ex Council Estates can have quite uniform demographics.
Or is this the new normal in that part of Surrey, or that seat. There was a 20% swing Con->LD afaics at the General Election in Surrey Heath.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
There is no point to them, other than pretend. They are called a chicane barrier. Research indicates that it is far better for ASB to have a path that everyone can use rather than an unused one that is made difficult to use. These are several things:
1 - They are old. That looks like 1985-1995 vintage, probably contemporaneous with the building on the left with the faux wooden balcony and 2:1:2 2G window. The bollards you can see on the next bit of that are the better way to do it, and they are ~1960-1975 vintage.
2 - They are there as a sop to silly voters by silly Councillors, possibly due to advice to stop free movement the police used to give back then, or because they look like someone is doing something. Usually they go in when 2 or 3 people with a local vote complain.
3 - They are probably aimed at off-road motorbikes not cycles.
4 - They are a waste of money that could have been spent on something useful. But Councillors love pissing it away, even when we have so little.
5 - They are illegal under Equality Act 2010, and if it is a RoW under Highways Act 1980 as well. It is not a "reasonable adjustment", and we have Supreme Court level case law that lawful users may not be impeded in order to (allegedly - it doesn't work) manage ASB. ASB is a police matter, not an access matter.
6 - They are probably completely unknown to the Local Highways Authority. They never know about them, and never keep records.
7 - They are very common. I have about 1 per 100 people in my town.
8 - They can be challenged, but it is a slow process, and Councils will really drag their feet because they and voters believe the myth. It may take 1month to 3 years to "No. It stays. So sue us.".
The most effective challenge is to a Local Councillor from someone who lives there and is impeded by it regularly. It saves a lot of paper.
9 - They are a weird British thing. I have never seen anything like the petty use of these we get here in any other country.
These things are the absolute worst. It's always embarrassing holding up pedestrians coming the other way as you try to manoeuvre your bike through them. I love how cyclists have created a bypass path round the one in the picture, though.
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
The Lib Dems took control of the council and won the Parliamentary seat. This is an example of how once that happens, they consolidate all the anti-Tory vote behind them. Those Tories thinking that the 2024 gains for the Lib Dems will meekly revert to previous Tory loyalties may find that in fact they lose ground as the yellows dig in to their new seats. The county elections next may could see some big shifts in favour of Ed Davey's party as a result.
Going after assets isn't much of a long term strategy, though. As we saw with government selling off its assets over the last few decades to fund current spending.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
That's - pretty average club player. She probably would only just about make my local team (8 boards).
[Though it isn't terrible for 'girls' chess at the time]
That might be a pretty average club player to you, but that is pretty strong for junior girl.
My daughter played in the US Girls Chess Championship in Chicago, and she's 1,100 rated and she won two matches, drew one, and lost four. 1,100 is not great at all, but it was clearly sufficient to get her into a surprsingly middle ranking position.
Yes, unlikely to be a lie, but the Wikipedia wording is a bit misleading and vague. It makes it almost sound like she was British under 14 girls champion (I don't think she was), rather than being best under 14 girl at some tournament. For the record I was best under 16 at some tournaments a long time ago, and county under 16 champion, but I wouldn't be able to prove It now. I had a BCF rating of 150 (from memory) at the time, no idea what the equivalent elo rating would be.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
I don’t recall Ken Clarke dyeing his hair turquoise-green for a week, as he wrestled with the fallout from the ERM debacle
Ken Clarke wasn't chancellor during the ERM debacle. He replaced Norman Lamont the following year.
If we're complaining about road and pavement designs, what is the bloody point of those barriers on seemingly every pavement which practically force cyclists to dismount by introducing a chicane?
Presumably to slow cyclists down as a safety thing, but if there's no road right past them it is extremely disproportionate as a measure to require that, not to mention making things difficult to impossible for those in wheelchairs or pushing prams etc.
(It's now past midnight so I'm permitted another image)
Some are worst than this as it is hard even to walk past them!
There is no point to them, other than pretend. They are called a chicane barrier. Research indicates that it is far better for ASB to have a path that everyone can use rather than an unused one that is made difficult to use. These are several things:
1 - They are old. That looks like 1985-1995 vintage, probably contemporaneous with the building on the left with the faux wooden balcony and 2:1:2 2G window. The bollards you can see on the next bit of that are the better way to do it, and they are ~1960-1975 vintage.
2 - They are there as a sop to silly voters by silly Councillors, possibly due to advice to stop free movement the police used to give back then, or because they look like someone is doing something. Usually they go in when 2 or 3 people with a local vote complain.
3 - They are probably aimed at off-road motorbikes not cycles.
4 - They are a waste of money that could have been spent on something useful. But Councillors love pissing it away, even when we have so little.
5 - They are illegal under Equality Act 2010, and if it is a RoW under Highways Act 1980 as well. It is not a "reasonable adjustment", and we have Supreme Court level case law that lawful users may not be impeded in order to (allegedly - it doesn't work) manage ASB. ASB is a police matter, not an access matter.
6 - They are probably completely unknown to the Local Highways Authority. They never know about them, and never keep records.
7 - They are very common. I have about 1 per 100 people in my town.
8 - They can be challenged, but it is a slow process, and Councils will really drag their feet because they and voters believe the myth. It may take 1month to 3 years to "No. It stays. So sue us.".
The most effective challenge is to a Local Councillor from someone who lives there and is impeded by it regularly. It saves a lot of paper.
9 - They are a weird British thing. I have never seen anything like the petty use of these we get here in any other country.
Sometimes get them here in Germany at entrances to parks. They are really annoying to cyclists, especially if you have a trailer or a cargo bike.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
I don’t recall Ken Clarke dyeing his hair turquoise-green for a week, as he wrestled with the fallout from the ERM debacle
Ken Clarke wasn't chancellor during the ERM debacle. He replaced Norman Lamont the following year.
So strictly speaking Leon is quite right when he says he doesn’t recollect it.
OTOH badgerhead Lamont might have benefitted from some image rethink along those lines.
Appropriately enough, Little Marco is a microcosm of what happened to the Republican party.
Marco Rubio in 2016: “There are many people on the right that are going to have to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.”
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
As I’ve said before, I would expect rhe LDs to do very well in the Home Counties seats where they now, for the first time, have the MP.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
I think the incumbent Councillor (who was well regarded) accepted a job in Hong Kong and therefore resigned. Don’t believe there were other factors at work, but you may be better placed to know.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
This is something the new leader needs to address.
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
The Lib Dems took control of the council and won the Parliamentary seat. This is an example of how once that happens, they consolidate all the anti-Tory vote behind them. Those Tories thinking that the 2024 gains for the Lib Dems will meekly revert to previous Tory loyalties may find that in fact they lose ground as the yellows dig in to their new seats. The county elections next may could see some big shifts in favour of Ed Davey's party as a result.
The Liberal Democrats stick to seats like shit to a stick.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
This is something the new leader needs to address.
Is either of them capable of that?
Jenrick, in particular, looks precision-designed to repel Lib-curious voters from the Conservatives.
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
The Lib Dems took control of the council and won the Parliamentary seat. This is an example of how once that happens, they consolidate all the anti-Tory vote behind them. Those Tories thinking that the 2024 gains for the Lib Dems will meekly revert to previous Tory loyalties may find that in fact they lose ground as the yellows dig in to their new seats. The county elections next may could see some big shifts in favour of Ed Davey's party as a result.
True, but if recent polling trends continue, the right (Reform/Tory) will soon be over 50%, then it won't matter who the LDs manage to consolidate, because it won't be enough.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
This is something the new leader needs to address.
Is either of them capable of that?
Jenrick, in particular, looks precision-designed to repel Lib-curious voters from the Conservatives.
Compared to the welcoming big tent, non tribal politics of Badenoch?
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
I don’t recall Ken Clarke dyeing his hair turquoise-green for a week, as he wrestled with the fallout from the ERM debacle
Ken Clarke wasn't chancellor during the ERM debacle. He replaced Norman Lamont the following year.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
The Tories are obviously not doing well in Con/LD or LD/Con areas. It's a different story when they're versus Labour.
This is something the new leader needs to address.
Is either of them capable of that?
Jenrick, in particular, looks precision-designed to repel Lib-curious voters from the Conservatives.
Compared to the welcoming big tent, non tribal politics of Badenoch?
Labour might do her work for her.
Home counties voters aren't going to plump for Santa's little helper forever.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
No. She was part of a team looking after the strategy for the overall Halifax / HBOS mortgage book of many billions at a time where it was becoming clear there were difficulties, after having had economics roles in the BoE.
She was commuting from Leeds and employed in a head office site in Halifax (there were also Head Office sites in Leeds). There certainly would have been cause for economists in such a department.
There is a clearly headed section in the below article that goes into a few paragraphs of detail about her time there.
From my own time there, there were people, including company economists, who did circular e-mails with commentary on the mortgage market / economic outlooks allied to the publicly released house price surveys. I'm by no means certain, but Reeves name did ring a bell with me as one of the contributors to those outputs when I first encountered her in politics.
Guido's claim doesn't ring true to me.
You might as well call TSE a bank clerk.
She worked in fucking Halifax
I worked in fucking Halifax for a time too. Because, it was, you know, the head office town of the fucking Halifax. You know, the one time, big, big, biggest in the fucking world, as the jingle used to go.
All over the world, yet t'north is mystery / mere WUM opportunity.
For the uninitiated, Halifax is probably the nicest of the M62 belt's former industrial medium-sized towns. It's not Bath or Edinburgh, but it feels a much more affluent town than Oldham, Rochdale, Huddersfield (also actually quite nice) or Dewsbury. Probably due to banking. Outsiders are often quite surprised.
I’ve seen pics of that amazing square. Piece something?
These critiques are fair. I do travel the entire world yet parts of my own country - specifically industrial northern England, parts of the midlands - are a mystery to me
I’ve been to everywhere else in the UK, mind. Not everyone can say that. All four nations and virtually all the coast
But Halifax, Dewsbury, Rochdale? No
On the subject of the UK coast: I came across this map today. It takes a bit of looking at: basically the height of tides all around the world. Britain really does have remarkably high tides, especially on the west coast (the best coast).
I pity that mass of humanity for whom the difference between high tide and low tide is a piffling couple of metres of less. Beaches without tides are unsatisfying.
That is one of the most amazing maps I have ever seen in terms of the evident bias displayed. West Coast American.
Near enough. "Pathfinder is a geospatial consulting service based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada."
9 - They are a weird British thing. I have never seen anything like the petty use of these we get here in any other country.
I think they're a pretty good example of the way in which one of the defining characteristics of British people is how much they dislike other British people. It's such a "fuck you" from one group of British people to another, ostensibly to deal with a different "fuck you" from another group of British people to others.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Much more interesting in his recent work is that Reeves not only alledgedly plagiarised her book, but has also lied about "being a chess champion" and "working as an economist for a high street bank":
"This is not true. Guido can reveal that Reeves worked in a mundane support department at the bank, according to multiple former colleagues. Within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team there was a small support unit which managed administration processes, IT matters, and small projects and planning. It was a team of three people far from the Economics Department. Reeves held a mid-level position."
"Reeves worked...at the bank...within the Halifax/HBOS Complaints team...Reeves held a mid-level position."
If her job title or role was economist/economics or some such, she's pretty much in the clear.
I think the point really is that her career is pretty unremarkable. Labour don't have any real thinkers or interesting politicians in its recent cohort of MP's. I was talking about this to some party member friends; the problem is that the party under Starmer is largely just characterised by order and discipline; now they are totally devoid of ideas, they are governing as an extension of the blob.
Yes. I was actually reassured by the info that Reeves was previously a “Bank of England economist”. I didn’t bother to check - who does?
Now it turns out she was a mid level paper pusher at the Halifax branch in Leeds. Jesus F Christ
Me too. I thought: I may disagree with RR, but she has a background in this. As much as anyone fresh faced does, she Knows What She's Doing. She understands that actions have consequences. She wouldn't be my choice of chancellor, but we'll be ok. And then it turns out she's there because SKS was looking for a CoE and someone thought RR had worked in a bank, so probably knows how to do it. And that's all there was. And that's all PLP had to offer. The best of them are well-meaning local councillors with vaguely managerial backgrounds and a broad but shallow understanding of the world picked up from the Guardian and conversations with other like-minded types. And the worst of them are the likes of Kim Johnson. And that's who's in charge now.
Which CoE do you have in mind as being better qualified? Ken Clarke was a lawyer for example, not an economist.
Not that any qualification is required, apart from being elected as MP.
I don’t recall Ken Clarke dyeing his hair turquoise-green for a week, as he wrestled with the fallout from the ERM debacle
Ken Clarke wasn't chancellor during the ERM debacle. He replaced Norman Lamont the following year.
It is bad that whenever the name Norman Lamont is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is the day he turned up at the National Comedy Awards, and was quite literally the butt of a very rude joke by comic Julian Clary?
These are quite extraordinary results. The Labour vote is collapsing everywhere
See my other post. I know the Old Dean very well. I have been involved in the past in umpteen elections here. Organised a few in the 90s/00s. It has always been a Tory/Lab fight. The LDs have never won it. Never made any inroads even in by elections. It is the worst ward in SH for the LDs.
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
The Lib Dems took control of the council and won the Parliamentary seat. This is an example of how once that happens, they consolidate all the anti-Tory vote behind them. Those Tories thinking that the 2024 gains for the Lib Dems will meekly revert to previous Tory loyalties may find that in fact they lose ground as the yellows dig in to their new seats. The county elections next may could see some big shifts in favour of Ed Davey's party as a result.
I think the latter part of your post is very true. I expect the LDs to make big gains in the Country elections in places where they won in Surrey. The biggest difficulty is the resources in targeting too many seats.
However I think this particular result was unprecedented. I have sent an email asking for the background.
Clear Labour to LD tactical voting there and Tories lost about half their previous vote to Reform
Nope it is something else. See my other posts. This is the worst ward in Surrey Heath for the LDs. I know it very very well. We have never got anywhere. When I was involved we had no members, no supporters and I note in the last few elections we haven't even put up candidates including the last election. We have never won it. It is a Lab Vs Tory ward. Any squeeze would be of our vote.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Simple. You are in opposition, Labour in government and unpopular so you squeezed the centre left protest vote while the rightwing vote was split between the Tories and Reform
I know the ward very, very well @HYUFD it really has been a no hoper for us forever. Even in our brightest moments we get stuffed here. It is our worst ward in Surrey Heath.We have never made a break through or got anywhere near. It is a dead duck for us. Also the Tories did not lose half their vote to Reform. They had 59% originally and Reform gained just 12%. Another 15% went to the LDs. It is actually quite remarkable how well the Tories have done here over the years. It is an ex council estate and some of it is quite rough, but they often take the seat or split it with Labour.
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
I think the incumbent Councillor (who was well regarded) accepted a job in Hong Kong and therefore resigned. Don’t believe there were other factors at work, but you may be better placed to know.
Thanks @JohnO. Appreciated. My knowledge is extensive, BUT out of date, although I note we haven't fought it for sometime. I have put out feelers to find out. As a LD I obviously hope there are no special circumstances, but the result seems too good to be true otherwise. I hope I am wrong. No matter what we did we could never make any dent here.
Comments
So something must be happening locally. It is an unprecedented result otherwise.
And of course, there was the time the board went absolutely mental on the subject of packet rice.
I pity that mass of humanity for whom the difference between high tide and low tide is a piffling couple of metres of less. Beaches without tides are unsatisfying.
Or the beetles?
Clarification needed...
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1849592430473117815?t=JAy4S1VUrsUftyvHDXAUFg&s=19
To my bed.
Educate yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2024/jan/30/the-20m-renovation-of-rochdale-town-hall-in-pictures
Now go visit.
Something else must be going on for something so dramatic. I will try and find out and report back.
Anecdata. I've been jumped on today by a development company that want a deed of transfer signed before the budget. It's a small ransom strip to a new housing estate, and they are trying afaics to get all the basics in place now. They have been sitting on this for about 3-4 years with an option agreement whilst they have been talking to the farmer next door, presumably waving it around and saying "look you can't sell to anyone except us".
They are not doing it to save me CGT (it's a development company
I hope the Local Councils everywhere are ready for the wave of applications that are about to arrive, as the logjam possibly unwinds a little !
I'm there are people here dealing with far bigger stuff than this. A straw in the wind?
But others on here have assured me perhaps Reeves is not as lightweight as she has seemed these last few months. So we'll see.
And that is pre-Budget.
1 - They are old. That looks like 1985-1995 vintage, probably contemporaneous with the building on the left with the faux wooden balcony and 2:1:2 2G window. The bollards you can see on the next bit of that are the better way to do it, and they are ~1960-1975 vintage.
2 - They are there as a sop to silly voters by silly Councillors, possibly due to advice to stop free movement the police used to give back then, or because they look like someone is doing something. Usually they go in when 2 or 3 people with a local vote complain.
3 - They are probably aimed at off-road motorbikes not cycles.
4 - They are a waste of money that could have been spent on something useful. But Councillors love pissing it away, even when we have so little.
5 - They are illegal under Equality Act 2010, and if it is a RoW under Highways Act 1980 as well. It is not a "reasonable adjustment", and we have Supreme Court level case law that lawful users may not be impeded in order to (allegedly - it doesn't work) manage ASB. ASB is a police matter, not an access matter.
6 - They are probably completely unknown to the Local Highways Authority. They never know about them, and never keep records.
7 - They are very common. I have about 1 per 100 people in my town.
8 - They can be challenged, but it is a slow process, and Councils will really drag their feet because they and voters believe the myth. It may take 1month to 3 years to "No. It stays. So sue us.".
The most effective challenge is to a Local Councillor from someone who lives there and is impeded by it regularly. It saves a lot of paper.
9 - They are a weird British thing. I have never seen anything like the petty use of these we get here in any other country.
https://x.com/Michael4Sussex/status/1849604225212240131
I have put out feelers to see if there are any special circumstances. I'm sure there must be. I will report back.
This isn't a normal by election result that can be explained away by national trends much as I would like it to be so.
Perhaps demographics (aging or need social care) and this currently being a Lib Dem issue? Ex Council Estates can have quite uniform demographics.
Or is this the new normal in that part of Surrey, or that seat. There was a 20% swing Con->LD afaics at the General Election in Surrey Heath.
COLLINS: What do you think Kamala Harris has to do to avoid a repeat of 2016?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well first of all I don't think she has Jim Comey in the wings waiting to kneecap her, so that's good.
...The prime minister’s spokesperson later clarified that he was referring to people who “primarily get their income from assets” and was “not precluding people that have a small amount of savings” in stocks and shares...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/24/keir-starmer-hints-at-tax-rises-on-people-with-income-from-assets
Going after assets isn't much of a long term strategy, though. As we saw with government selling off its assets over the last few decades to fund current spending.
Nuclear sub forced to ration food with sailors sharing sweets after crew nearly ran out of supplies on 6-month patrol
Medics feared a 'serious loss of life' from fatigue and concentration lapses
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/31295918/nuclear-submarine-food-low-sweets/
OTOH badgerhead Lamont might have benefitted from some image rethink along those lines.
Marco Rubio in 2016: “There are many people on the right that are going to have to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.”
Marco Rubio in 2024: *stumps for Donald Trump 12 days before Election Day*
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1849569993765138775
Yet again we see the problems that they left behind for Labour to sort out.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/24/justice-secretary-uk-winchester-prison-emergency-measures
Averaging out vote changes in recent weeks gives a decline in vote share of 14% or so.
If that does not improve, you should expect local election results as bad as 1967-69, for the party, in 2025-28.
Jenrick, in particular, looks precision-designed to repel Lib-curious voters from the Conservatives.
NEW THREAD
Home counties voters aren't going to plump for Santa's little helper forever.
Near enough. "Pathfinder is a geospatial consulting service based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada."
However I think this particular result was unprecedented. I have sent an email asking for the background.