Carlson, who said he still bears the scars, said his assailant was a “demon”. He added: “Or by something unseen that left claw marks on my sides.”
He said at the time of the attack, he was asleep in bed. I was “totally confused, I woke up, and I couldn’t breathe, and I thought I was going to suffocate”, he said.
It's a real mystery that one. Oh wait I missed this detail:
"I got attacked while I was asleep with my wife and four dogs and mauled, physically mauled.”
I'm not surprised. If I had the misfortune to be married to Tucker Carlson, I'd be tempted to make him think he was being mauled by demons as well.
I'm surprised he sleeps with his dogs though. A good Welshman would never do that. Frightens the sheep.
Yes I wasn't sure whether to pin it on the dogs or the wife.
Dreadful news this morning with the death of Alastair Down, the horse racing journalist, at the age of 68. He was at Cheltenham last Friday to open the Press Room which has been named after him. Many thought he didn't look well but I doubt few anticipated this sad news so soon.
This was his piece on the 2015 Cheltenham Gold Cup reproduced in last Friday's Racing Post:
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
I'd withdraw that remark if I were you.
The Mafia get really nasty when they're offended, and you've just compared them to Trump.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Trump actually was shot following incendiary rhetoric from the other side, comparing him with Hitler and calling to stop him.
Lots of companies pile pressure, targets and stress onto workers and then telegraph that they couldn't care less about them. Simple things, like a thank you or a bit of appreciation and recognition, that cost nothing, would go a long way - but so many just don't want to engage with their staff as people.
Yup, and also its much more challenging twin- telling someone off but also reassembling them in such a way that they can go out and perform five minutes later. The best people I've worked for did both of those brilliantly, but at significant cost to their relationship with their higher-ups. Which has always been my excuse for avoiding the whole business.
Don't want to sound too much like an Unherd columnist, but my hunch it's that we don't get organisational scale right now. Once an organisation gets beyond a certain size, you have to manage people as cells on a spreadsheet and their humanity fades into an emoji. Communications tech means that people can do management stuff for a thousand staff, but I'm less convinced that they can manage a thousand people.
I wonder if WFH is not helping with this. It might be harder to see people as, well, people when your only interaction is on a weekly Teams call.
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Your brain added 'if' and 'would' to Trump's statement where there were none, maybe you should think about that.
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Trump actually was shot following incendiary rhetoric from the other side, comparing him with Hitler and calling to stop him.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
At best you can look at Trump’s various statements as being poorly chosen and reckless. At worst you can see them as incitement. Either way, he gets no credit as far as I’m concerned.
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
It’s inflammatory language. You can make the point much better without talking about guns pointing at anyone.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Trump actually was shot following incendiary rhetoric from the other side, comparing him with Hitler and calling to stop him.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Trump actually was shot following incendiary rhetoric from the other side, comparing him with Hitler and calling to stop him.
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
Trump actually was shot following incendiary rhetoric from the other side, comparing him with Hitler and calling to stop him.
Dirty Harry he is not.
He doesn't feel lucky?
Oh no, of course not. Her name was Stormy.
Her name was not punk.
There was mush room for improvement in my comment.
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Your brain added 'if' and 'would' to Trump's statement where there were none, maybe you should think about that.
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
Do you think it's literally a call to conscript her and send her to war? Do you give Biden a pass for talking about putting Trump in a bullseye?
Back to matters politic and good news for Londoners with the suspension of the threatened RMT strikes on the Underground next week. That will mean normal services except on Thursday 7th when ASLEF drivers are due to walk out and close the service.
I've not commented much on the American Presidential election - I've found the vagaries of the polling fascinating. It seems someone is going to end up with egg on their face (overeasy or sunny side up is hard to know). I hope for a large turnout. Let's not forget 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 (16 million more voted for Biden than for Hillary Clinton).
Indeed, a greater proportion of the US electorate voted in 2020 than did our electorate in 2024 and it may be the same again (wouldn't be difficult).
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
Back to matters politic and good news for Londoners with the suspension of the threatened RMT strikes on the Underground next week. That will mean normal services except on Thursday 7th when ASLEF drivers are due to walk out and close the service.
I've not commented much on the American Presidential election - I've found the vagaries of the polling fascinating. It seems someone is going to end up with egg on their face (overeasy or sunny side up is hard to know). I hope for a large turnout. Let's not forget 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 (16 million more voted for Biden than for Hillary Clinton).
Indeed, a greater proportion of the US electorate voted in 2020 than did our electorate in 2024 and it may be the same again (wouldn't be difficult).
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
Though some of the bitterest arguments can come from supporters of John Jackson who hate Jack Johnson with and his supporters with a passion.
Of course Jack Johnson can do no wrong and I won't abide by anyone who says otherwise.
Isn't their case against Fox still ongoing? (Dominion got a settlement some while back).
I suspect the media companies will be smarter about peddling the disinformation this time. They certainly won't stop doing it - as the Dominion case made very clear, the reason Fox peddled it was they were being punished by their audience for not peddling it enough.
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
I don't think we want the level of divisiveness we see in the US, just because it boosts turnout a few percentage points.
Really little difference between Badenoch and Jenrick amongst voters there.
Both can take some encouragement that while Starmer leads them as preferred PM, despite his winning a landslide general election victory just a few months ago both are far closer to him in terms of the preferred PM poll than Hague was to Blair in preferred PM polls in late 1997.
So despite still not being much more popular than Hague's Tories were the Tories will make gains on current polls merely because of the unpopular Labour government, even despite the split on the right with Reform. Indeed if anything polling shows Reform starting to take more voters from Labour since the general election with the Tories unchanged. Under FPTP though that means mainly Tory seat gains from Labour, even if they lose a few to Reform too as also will Labour
Does it mean anything? Probably, but the level to which it does is only clear in the aftermath, so for now it's hoping that these are average women voters (who favour Harris), and it's not overcome by voting on the day. Interesting where it is much closer though.
Does it mean anything? Probably, but the level to which it does is only clear in the aftermath, so for now it's hoping that these are average women voters (who favour Harris), and it's not overcome by voting on the day. Interesting where it is much closer though.
What's really interesting about that chart is how many non-binary people there appear to be in Arizona and Nevada compared to the other States.
Looks about right to me. Trump wins Arizona and Georgia, Harris wins Michigan and Wisconsin and Nevada with Pennsylvania and North Carolina too close to call but leaning Harris
Yeah, not as though he has an enormously long history of this kind of bullshit, or anything. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
At best you can look at Trump’s various statements as being poorly chosen and reckless. At worst you can see them as incitement. Either way, he gets no credit as far as I’m concerned.
In the context of how he normally speaks it is already terrible enough. It shouldn't be pushed further than that to something it probably is not, as it doesn't need to be.
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Your brain added 'if' and 'would' to Trump's statement where there were none, maybe you should think about that.
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
Do you think it's literally a call to conscript her and send her to war? Do you give Biden a pass for talking about putting Trump in a bullseye?
No, and no. tbf I think Biden himself wasn't OK with his own statement.
unlike you, I'm also not OK with Trump saying
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face"
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
I don't think we want the level of divisiveness we see in the US, just because it boosts turnout a few percentage points.
And our turnout is usually better than theirs without it, albeit probably not on this upcoming occasion.
The problem in the US is simply that there is so much to vote for.
So, if you like here in Los Angeles, you will have the following things to vote on:
(1) US President (2) US Senate (3) US House of Representatives (4) At least 10 State wide ballot propositions (5) At least 3 Los Angeles county ballot propositions (6) A further 6 Los Angeles City ballot propositions (7) A Los Angeles Unified School District proposition (8) State Congressmen (9) State Senators (10) The County District Attorney (11) City councilmen (12) Various city level appointments, including comptroller
You might very well have more than 40 different things where you need to make a decision.
And that's why machines are so appealing - they simplify everything.
Unfortunately, they are also inherently black boxes that reduce trust in the democratic process.
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
I don't think we want the level of divisiveness we see in the US, just because it boosts turnout a few percentage points.
Granted and I'm not arguing that but there is a point that if voters feel the election is between two shades of the same grey there's little point getting involved.
I do accept there has been a wider disengagement/disenchantment with UK politics - after all, 78% voted in 1992 and had the same proportion voted this time we'd have had an extra 9 million votes (nearly as many as voted Labour).
Where have all the voters gone? I'd like to think a big part of the post-2024 analysis is asking who didn't vote and why they didn't vote. Pre-election polls were suggesting based on likelihood to vote a turnout in the mid to high 60s - in the end a turnout close to 2001.
Now, you can argue when an election looks like a foregone conclusion there's no incentive to vote but that wasn't the case in 1983 (72.7%) so something more profound has happened in the past 30-40 years. The last decent turnout for an election was the 72.2% for the 2016 referendum but even that wasn't that strong in the context of elections pre 1992.
'I’ve just met with Abbas Alawieh, one of the co-founders of the Uncommitted Movement in Dearborn, Michigan. The group protested during the Democratic primaries by not endorsing Joe Biden.
Alawieh says the Arab American community in Dearborn, where Donald Trump is campaigning today, is “hurting” and “grieving” as many have lost family members in the war.
He has decided to vote for Kamala Harris because he believes his movement and others would have more ability to influence her policy on the Middle East than a Trump administration.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c74l39543q5t
Looks about right to me. Trump wins Arizona and Georgia, Harris wins Michigan and Wisconsin and Nevada with Pennsylvania and North Carolina too close to call but leaning Harris
Worst scenario for being left on tenterhooks would be Harris winning Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Trump winning the rest, with Nevada too close to call.
The problem in the US is simply that there is so much to vote for.
So, if you like here in Los Angeles, you will have the following things to vote on:
(1) US President (2) US Senate (3) US House of Representatives (4) At least 10 State wide ballot propositions (5) At least 3 Los Angeles county ballot propositions (6) A further 6 Los Angeles City ballot propositions (7) A Los Angeles Unified School District proposition (8) State Congressmen (9) State Senators (10) The County District Attorney (11) City councilmen (12) Various city level appointments, including comptroller
You might very well have more than 40 different things where you need to make a decision.
And that's why machines are so appealing - they simplify everything.
Unfortunately, they are also inherently black boxes that reduce trust in the democratic process.
Are there any states which don't go in for them, despite the complexities of the ballots?
Also a handy reminder to us all that whilst it's still ridiculous California will take weeks to finalise its counting process, it is never going to be as quick as we would like.
Does it mean anything? Probably, but the level to which it does is only clear in the aftermath, so for now it's hoping that these are average women voters (who favour Harris), and it's not overcome by voting on the day. Interesting where it is much closer though.
What's really interesting about that chart is how many non-binary people there appear to be in Arizona and Nevada compared to the other States.
So you're putting that couple of per cent on Harris's vote, then ?
Looks about right to me. Trump wins Arizona and Georgia, Harris wins Michigan and Wisconsin and Nevada with Pennsylvania and North Carolina too close to call but leaning Harris
Worst scenario for being left on tenterhooks would be Harris winning Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina and Trump winning the rest, with Nevada too close to call.
Nevada counts sloooooooooooowly.
Who runs the state legislature? In super close races and potential for non-certification games leading to legal cases, that could be a factor.
David Goldstone has previously worked as a top executive on the London Olympics, Parliament's restoration and HS2 high speed rail.
At least the middle one is unlikely to be his fault, Parliament keeps putting off major decisions and changing its mind about what it wants (on the false assumption it will get cheaper or more popular if left til later?). Though receiving a massive bonus on top of a huge salary as part of the project is just insane.
FPT: A reminder: The US election is also for the House and Senate (And, literally thousands of state and local offices).
As of now, I think it likely that the Republicans will take control of the Senate, and that the odds slightly favor the Democrats taking control of the House. (For the record, I'm in favor of both.)
If both those things happen, whoever wins the presidency will be severely limited in how many of their promises they can keep.
Harris has the GOP ahead in their latest generic House ballot, the Senate also seems to be going GOP.
I think even if Harris wins the likelihood is US voters also elect a GOP Congress to push for lower taxes and control spending and restrict wokeism, just for Harris to keep out Trump and his authoritarianism
It’s helpful, from experience, to be closing a Presidential campaign with late deciding voters breaking by double digits to you and the remaining undecideds looking more friendly to you than your opponent.
Donald Trump's U.S. Surgeon General on the prospect of RFK Jr. taking a high-level role in a second-term administration: "It’s hard to implement your other political priorities if you’re busy dealing with a measles or polio outbreak.".. https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1852392853609046421
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
I don't think we want the level of divisiveness we see in the US, just because it boosts turnout a few percentage points.
Granted and I'm not arguing that but there is a point that if voters feel the election is between two shades of the same grey there's little point getting involved.
I do accept there has been a wider disengagement/disenchantment with UK politics - after all, 78% voted in 1992 and had the same proportion voted this time we'd have had an extra 9 million votes (nearly as many as voted Labour).
Where have all the voters gone? I'd like to think a big part of the post-2024 analysis is asking who didn't vote and why they didn't vote. Pre-election polls were suggesting based on likelihood to vote a turnout in the mid to high 60s - in the end a turnout close to 2001.
Now, you can argue when an election looks like a foregone conclusion there's no incentive to vote but that wasn't the case in 1983 (72.7%) so something more profound has happened in the past 30-40 years. The last decent turnout for an election was the 72.2% for the 2016 referendum but even that wasn't that strong in the context of elections pre 1992.
Comparing recent history, I think the reduced turnout this year was a consequence of the result - in terms of some form of Labour win - being a foregone conclusion, combined with widespread disillusionment with the Conservatives by people who would typically vote for them.
I've no answer to the long-term trend down. In part because i wasn't an adult paying at to politics from the 2010 election onwards, during which there hasn't been a big shift other than this year for the reasons I described above.
But, on a related point, the group of people voting in the 80s is almost entirely different to the group today. And cultural change that happens over 40 years is bound to impact political engagement.
Also shows how she should have chosen Shapiro as her VP pick.
Harris does not look entirely comfortable in that clip.
Interesting balancing act for Shapiro - he wants to run in 2028 for the D nomination but obviously has to be seen as helping out the campaign.
Don't think it will move the dial but it will help out Shapiro for the next run.
Ironically a Trump win is better for Shapiro, then he can run against Vance in 2028.
If Harris wins then either she runs for re election in 2028 or Walz runs then or in 2032. So his next shot would not come until 2036
Walz is I think either the same age as Harris or slightly older? Doubt if he will run in 2032 when he would be 68.
A few months older only. After 8 years of a President in their 60s though America will be ready to ditch the youth and go for someone who will turn 70 during their own term.
Back to matters politic and good news for Londoners with the suspension of the threatened RMT strikes on the Underground next week. That will mean normal services except on Thursday 7th when ASLEF drivers are due to walk out and close the service.
I've not commented much on the American Presidential election - I've found the vagaries of the polling fascinating. It seems someone is going to end up with egg on their face (overeasy or sunny side up is hard to know). I hope for a large turnout. Let's not forget 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 (16 million more voted for Biden than for Hillary Clinton).
Indeed, a greater proportion of the US electorate voted in 2020 than did our electorate in 2024 and it may be the same again (wouldn't be difficult).
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
Though some of the bitterest arguments can come from supporters of John Jackson who hate Jack Johnson with and his supporters with a passion.
Of course Jack Johnson can do no wrong and I won't abide by anyone who says otherwise.
Well, yes.
I've dabbled in politics at various levels for much of my adult life and I can honestly say I've never "hated" any political figure in any party. I've profoundly disagreed with a number of them on a range of issues at given times (including some in the party I support and of which I was once a member and activist).
On a different level, it can benefit a party for all the "hate" to be channelled toward the leader - sensible leaders realise this and take on the mantle of the scapegoat knowing once they are in the wilderness the wider Party can rebuild with a clean slate. John Major knew that and I think Rishi Sunak grasped it at the end too. Blame me, not my party, is a way of providing a final service to the Party.
I also agree uncritical adulation is no substitute for objective commentary but it's very difficult to be objective. The best you can hope for is to be even-handed and recognise the parties you don't support sometimes get it right and the party you do support sometimes gets it wrong.
I remember reading a reprint of an old News Chronicle from the winter of 1944. Now, it's wartime and you might expect eulogising for the allies and outright condemnation for the Germans. No, the paper praised the German effort at Arnhem calling it a "brilliant victory of improvisation" - note, they didn't condemn the British/American tactics but sometimes in politics you have to accept the other side has done well and has the right answer without necessarily condemning your side (disloyalty?).
BMG reporting the first Tory lead since 1754 with:
Con 29 Lab 28 Reform 17 LDs 13 Greens 8
Blue dawn.
The Conservatives have regained a polling lead over Labour for the first time in three years in the wake of the Budget, a new survey suggests.
A BMG Research poll for i shows that just a quarter of the public feel positive about the Government’s first Budget this week, with 40 per cent disapproving of the package set out by Rachel Reeves.
Voters are much more likely to say that the measures announced by the Chancellor will leave them worse off than that they will benefit from the higher spending funded by tax rises and borrowing.
More funding for the NHS, schools and potholes are all overwhelmingly popular, according to the survey, but voters are split on the £25bn tax hike for businesses and opposed to the idea of increasing the cap on bus fares from £2 to £3.
Asked how they would vote if a fresh general election were held now, 29 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives with 28 per cent opting for Labour.
The Tories’ one-point lead is within the poll’s margin of error – but it is believed to be the first time that any published poll has shown a lead of any size for the party since December 2021, when the “Partygate” scandal was beginning to emerge. BMG’s last poll, conducted in early October, showed a five-point lead for Labour.
Reform UK is third on 17 per cent, down from 20 per cent a month ago, with the Liberal Democrats steady on 13 per cent and the Greens winning the backing of 8 per cent of voters.
Sir Keir Starmer’s personal ratings have also suffered, reaching a new low of net -26 with 23 per cent of the public approving of his performance in office and 49 per cent dissatisfied. Meanwhile Rishi Sunak, whose last full day as leader of the Conservatives was Friday, has recovered to -5 having gone into the general election on -42.
While Labour is still more trusted by the Conservatives on issues including housing, the NHS, welfare and education, the Tories hold a slim lead on the economy, foreign affairs and security.
Robert Struthers of BMG said: “Our post-Budget polling underlines just how tough the early months of a Labour government are shaping up to be. In the days after Rachel Reeves finished delivering her first Budget, our polling shows Labour already trailing the Conservatives, albeit marginally. This is with the Conservatives yet to elect a new leader – they’ve managed to take a poll lead simply by letting Labour govern.
Dreadful news this morning with the death of Alastair Down, the horse racing journalist, at the age of 68. He was at Cheltenham last Friday to open the Press Room which has been named after him. Many thought he didn't look well but I doubt few anticipated this sad news so soon.
This was his piece on the 2015 Cheltenham Gold Cup reproduced in last Friday's Racing Post:
Uniform swing, so you know the song... But it does highlight the right's problem.
There is a Lib-Lab split, but (at least for now) it's a helpful efficient split; the two parties don't trip over each other in many places.
The RefCon split just hurts each party. And I don't see how they get even as far as non-aggression without a slice of centrish-right votes peeling off the Conservatives.
I somehow missed that Bulgaria just had its 7th election in 3.5 years earlier this week, with results probably meaning another is likely early next year.
There's been plenty of shifts in party sizes across those various elections, but they are putting Israel's 5 elections in 3 years from a few years back to shame.
BMG reporting the first Tory lead since 1754 with:
Con 29 Lab 28 Reform 17 LDs 13 Greens 8
Congratulations. This is as significant as Labour leading in September 2010. It took Labour 14 years to win power from its first poll lead.
Well, it's not really possible to know if it is significant until later. Is it like September 2010 when it meant nothing, or is it like late 2021 when Labour took consistent leads against the Tories and ended up winning massively?
My money would be on the former, but the first lead, even if ephemeral, is still worth noting.
Does it mean anything? Probably, but the level to which it does is only clear in the aftermath, so for now it's hoping that these are average women voters (who favour Harris), and it's not overcome by voting on the day. Interesting where it is much closer though.
If you look at Georgia, you can draw four different conclusions from the data:
(1) Good for Democrats as more women than men! (2) Good for Republicans as people voting earlier are older! (3) Good for Democrats as a lot of the early voting is from the Atlanta region! (4) Good for the Republicans as this probably merely reflects the fact that queues will be much longer on polling day in dense urban areas!
So, you takes your money and you makes your choice.
Intuitively, I think the NV and AZ numbers look pretty weak for the Democrats (and certainly point to Trump winning them), while the other numbers look like much more of a wash.
BMG reporting the first Tory lead since 1754 with:
Con 29 Lab 28 Reform 17 LDs 13 Greens 8
Congratulations. This is as significant as Labour leading in September 2010. It took Labour 14 years to win power from its first poll lead.
Well, it's not really possible to know if it is significant until later. Is it like September 2010 when it meant nothing, or is it like late 2021 when Labour took consistent leads against the Tories and ended up winning massively?
My money would be on the former, but the first lead, even if ephemeral, is still worth noting.
Indeed. But having lived it, I would council caution. It’s the hope that kills you.
The lead doesn’t tell us who will win the next GE and no Tories should view it as a huge endorsement (they lead with 29%!) but it does show the political landscape of 2024 is very different to 1997. It shows that -at present- people really aren’t enamoured of either party, and there’s lots to play for.
The lead doesn’t tell us who will win the next GE and no Tories should view it as a huge endorsement (they lead with 29%!) but it does show the political landscape of 2024 is very different to 1997. It shows that -at present- people really aren’t enamoured of either party, and there’s lots to play for.
The problem in the US is simply that there is so much to vote for.
So, if you like here in Los Angeles, you will have the following things to vote on:
(1) US President (2) US Senate (3) US House of Representatives (4) At least 10 State wide ballot propositions (5) At least 3 Los Angeles county ballot propositions (6) A further 6 Los Angeles City ballot propositions (7) A Los Angeles Unified School District proposition (8) State Congressmen (9) State Senators (10) The County District Attorney (11) City councilmen (12) Various city level appointments, including comptroller
You might very well have more than 40 different things where you need to make a decision.
And that's why machines are so appealing - they simplify everything.
Unfortunately, they are also inherently black boxes that reduce trust in the democratic process.
Are there any states which don't go in for them, despite the complexities of the ballots?
Also a handy reminder to us all that whilst it's still ridiculous California will take weeks to finalise its counting process, it is never going to be as quick as we would like.
Well California is particularly bad, because we have ballot propositions up the wazoo. There are at least 20 that need to be voted on next Tuesday.
The best compromise, I believe, is a system where people mark a paper ballot and it is then read and tabulated in real time, so the voter can confirm that the computer has read their vote correctly. There can then be spot checks: what is the vote for [x] at this polling station? Well, let's pull the paper ballots and confirm they are right.
The lead doesn’t tell us who will win the next GE and no Tories should view it as a huge endorsement (they lead with 29%!) but it does show the political landscape of 2024 is very different to 1997. It shows that -at present- people really aren’t enamoured of either party, and there’s lots to play for.
The lead doesn’t tell us who will win the next GE and no Tories should view it as a huge endorsement (they lead with 29%!) but it does show the political landscape of 2024 is very different to 1997. It shows that -at present- people really aren’t enamoured of either party, and there’s lots to play for.
It’s more 2010 and 1979 than 1997
Quite possibly, but plenty of time to run yet.
Indeed. Folks here couldn’t predict the election result on election night, what chance do they have five years out. The world is more volatile than ever I’ve known it.
The problem in the US is simply that there is so much to vote for.
So, if you like here in Los Angeles, you will have the following things to vote on:
(1) US President (2) US Senate (3) US House of Representatives (4) At least 10 State wide ballot propositions (5) At least 3 Los Angeles county ballot propositions (6) A further 6 Los Angeles City ballot propositions (7) A Los Angeles Unified School District proposition (8) State Congressmen (9) State Senators (10) The County District Attorney (11) City councilmen (12) Various city level appointments, including comptroller
You might very well have more than 40 different things where you need to make a decision.
And that's why machines are so appealing - they simplify everything.
Unfortunately, they are also inherently black boxes that reduce trust in the democratic process.
Are there any states which don't go in for them, despite the complexities of the ballots?
Also a handy reminder to us all that whilst it's still ridiculous California will take weeks to finalise its counting process, it is never going to be as quick as we would like.
Well California is particularly bad, because we have ballot propositions up the wazoo. There are at least 20 that need to be voted on next Tuesday.
The best compromise, I believe, is a system where people mark a paper ballot and it is then read and tabulated in real time, so the voter can confirm that the computer has read their vote correctly. There can then be spot checks: what is the vote for [x] at this polling station? Well, let's pull the paper ballots and confirm they are right.
This site says a large number of the ballot initiatives have been 'withdrawn' but will still appear on the ballot.
I'm sure this one 'removed following a court ruling' would have been no trouble at all
Define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate
Sadly most others don't look to be wacky enough to be interesting, though WilliamGlenn would have liked this one
Require a personal finance course to graduate high school
Uniform swing, so you know the song... But it does highlight the right's problem.
There is a Lib-Lab split, but (at least for now) it's a helpful efficient split; the two parties don't trip over each other in many places.
The RefCon split just hurts each party. And I don't see how they get even as far as non-aggression without a slice of centrish-right votes peeling off the Conservatives.
There are few centre right swing voters left to peel off the Tories, they are down to their core vote. Indeed arguably if Badenoch or Jenrick doesn't work out at the next GE they might even be better with Rees Mogg, he really would unite the Right and collapse the Reform vote to the Tories and with a Labour vote already under 30% would have a shot at PM even with FPTP. Rees Mogg would regain his Somerset seat on the BMG poll today.
Remember too many centrists mocked Jezza but they weren't laughing on election night 2017 when he united the left behind Labour and got 40% of the vote, a hung parliament and 262 Labour MPs.
Even in 2019 when he lost heavily Labour got a higher voteshare under Corbyn than it had under Brown or Ed Miliband
Back to matters politic and good news for Londoners with the suspension of the threatened RMT strikes on the Underground next week. That will mean normal services except on Thursday 7th when ASLEF drivers are due to walk out and close the service.
I've not commented much on the American Presidential election - I've found the vagaries of the polling fascinating. It seems someone is going to end up with egg on their face (overeasy or sunny side up is hard to know). I hope for a large turnout. Let's not forget 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 (16 million more voted for Biden than for Hillary Clinton).
Indeed, a greater proportion of the US electorate voted in 2020 than did our electorate in 2024 and it may be the same again (wouldn't be difficult).
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
Though some of the bitterest arguments can come from supporters of John Jackson who hate Jack Johnson with and his supporters with a passion.
Of course Jack Johnson can do no wrong and I won't abide by anyone who says otherwise.
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Your brain added 'if' and 'would' to Trump's statement where there were none, maybe you should think about that.
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
Do you think it's literally a call to conscript her and send her to war? Do you give Biden a pass for talking about putting Trump in a bullseye?
Ignore all the mad shit, the misogyny, the racism, inciting a coup, the racketeering, the draft dodging. When Trump suggested guns should be pointed at the face of Liz Cheney (and he was very specific) his words were "taken out of context".
what about your deliberate misreading earlier? where you inserted the words "if" and "how would" she feel, when Trump used no 'if' or 'would'?
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
Let's translate it into a UK context. If you said, "Tony Blair is a war hawk when he's sitting in a nice building in London. Let's give him a rifle and see how he feels when the guns are trained on his face," would that be a call to execute Tony Blair, or a colourful way of calling out his enthusiasm for putting other people in the line of fire?
Your brain added 'if' and 'would' to Trump's statement where there were none, maybe you should think about that.
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
Do you think it's literally a call to conscript her and send her to war? Do you give Biden a pass for talking about putting Trump in a bullseye?
Ignore all the mad shit, the misogyny, the racism, inciting a coup, the racketeering, the draft dodging. When Trump suggested guns should be pointed at the face of Liz Cheney (and he was very specific) his words were "taken out of context".
Of course they were William.
It's possible they could be a bit, without it really mattering on his awfulness at all because of the even wider context of what he has often said very clearly and directly, so i don't think the 'out of context' defence really works much.
Comments
Dreadful news this morning with the death of Alastair Down, the horse racing journalist, at the age of 68. He was at Cheltenham last Friday to open the Press Room which has been named after him. Many thought he didn't look well but I doubt few anticipated this sad news so soon.
This was his piece on the 2015 Cheltenham Gold Cup reproduced in last Friday's Racing Post:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/features/alastair-downs-archives-the-great-writer-recalls-coneygrees-glorious-victory-in-the-2015-cheltenham-gold-cup-a4Vwr7G6W9yZ/
This also regarding the 2011 Gold Cup reproduced today in tribute:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/alastair-down-1956-2024/alastair-down-kauto-v-denman-v-long-run-was-one-of-those-rare-and-treasured-days-when-everything-you-hoped-for-unfolds-before-scarce-believing-eyes-aPS6l6M9WmvD/
There are some on here who write, some who even write for a living. This is writing.
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face..."
Completely innocent hypothetical, of course.
Those mafia guys, "nice little business you've got here..", totally on the level, too.
The Mafia get really nasty when they're offended, and you've just compared them to Trump.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1852159160634478921
Clearly how acceptable it is to say "let's put Tony Blair with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at him, okay? Let's see how he feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on his face" would depend on who's saying it. I would find it pretty unacceptable had Corbyn said it while campaigning in a general election where he had a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In the context of someone who has talked about using the military against the 'enemy within', and sees himself as completely above the law it is far worse.
https://today.yougov.com/elections/us/2024
In terms of key states
State Harris Trump
Arizona 47.7% 49.8%
Georgia 48.1% 49.1%
Michigan 50% 46.1%
Nevada 49.5% 47.7%
North Carolina 49.2% 48.3%
Pennsylvania 49.2% 48.3%
Wisconsin 49.4% 47.2%
Oh no, of course not. Her name was Stormy.
Made money at UK GE by getting good odds on Con holds, betting against the MRPs.
(Still LOL’ing at those!)
I've not commented much on the American Presidential election - I've found the vagaries of the polling fascinating. It seems someone is going to end up with egg on their face (overeasy or sunny side up is hard to know). I hope for a large turnout. Let's not forget 12 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 (16 million more voted for Biden than for Hillary Clinton).
Indeed, a greater proportion of the US electorate voted in 2020 than did our electorate in 2024 and it may be the same again (wouldn't be difficult).
Getting people motivated to go out and vote is often the hardest part of political activism - it strengthens an argument I've heard elsewhere a "proper choice" between two (or more) divergent philosophies is best for democracy as it forces the voters to make a choice and come to a conclusion.
Low turnout elections tend to be where the choice is between John Jackson and Jack Johnson - democracy can and perhaps should be adversarial but not violent, based on argument rather than force.
Of course Jack Johnson can do no wrong and I won't abide by anyone who says otherwise.
Voting machine companies are fighting the next disinformation war
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/1/24284887/smartmatic-dominion-voting-machine-companies-trust-disinformation
I suspect the media companies will be smarter about peddling the disinformation this time. They certainly won't stop doing it - as the Dominion case made very clear, the reason Fox peddled it was they were being punished by their audience for not peddling it enough.
Both can take some encouragement that while Starmer leads them as preferred PM, despite his winning a landslide general election victory just a few months ago both are far closer to him in terms of the preferred PM poll than Hague was to Blair in preferred PM polls in late 1997.
So despite still not being much more popular than Hague's Tories were the Tories will make gains on current polls merely because of the unpopular Labour government, even despite the split on the right with Reform. Indeed if anything polling shows Reform starting to take more voters from Labour since the general election with the Tories unchanged. Under FPTP though that means mainly Tory seat gains from Labour, even if they lose a few to Reform too as also will Labour
Interesting where it is much closer though.
unlike you, I'm also not OK with Trump saying
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face"
The problem in the US is simply that there is so much to vote for.
So, if you like here in Los Angeles, you will have the following things to vote on:
(1) US President
(2) US Senate
(3) US House of Representatives
(4) At least 10 State wide ballot propositions
(5) At least 3 Los Angeles county ballot propositions
(6) A further 6 Los Angeles City ballot propositions
(7) A Los Angeles Unified School District proposition
(8) State Congressmen
(9) State Senators
(10) The County District Attorney
(11) City councilmen
(12) Various city level appointments, including comptroller
You might very well have more than 40 different things where you need to make a decision.
And that's why machines are so appealing - they simplify everything.
Unfortunately, they are also inherently black boxes that reduce trust in the democratic process.
I do accept there has been a wider disengagement/disenchantment with UK politics - after all, 78% voted in 1992 and had the same proportion voted this time we'd have had an extra 9 million votes (nearly as many as voted Labour).
Where have all the voters gone? I'd like to think a big part of the post-2024 analysis is asking who didn't vote and why they didn't vote. Pre-election polls were suggesting based on likelihood to vote a turnout in the mid to high 60s - in the end a turnout close to 2001.
Now, you can argue when an election looks like a foregone conclusion there's no incentive to vote but that wasn't the case in 1983 (72.7%) so something more profound has happened in the past 30-40 years. The last decent turnout for an election was the 72.2% for the 2016 referendum but even that wasn't that strong in the context of elections pre 1992.
Alawieh says the Arab American community in Dearborn, where Donald Trump is campaigning today, is “hurting” and “grieving” as many have lost family members in the war.
He has decided to vote for Kamala Harris because he believes his movement and others would have more ability to influence her policy on the Middle East than a Trump administration.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c74l39543q5t
Nevada counts sloooooooooooowly.
Also a handy reminder to us all that whilst it's still ridiculous California will take weeks to finalise its counting process, it is never going to be as quick as we would like.
https://x.com/bbcnews/status/1852346856707183040?s=61
If Harris wins then either she runs for re election in 2028 or Walz runs then or in 2032. So his next shot would not come until 2036
At least the middle one is unlikely to be his fault, Parliament keeps putting off major decisions and changing its mind about what it wants (on the false assumption it will get cheaper or more popular if left til later?). Though receiving a massive bonus on top of a huge salary as part of the project is just insane.
- "No Obamacare"
- RFK Jr. in charge health/vaccines
- Protect women whether they like it or not
- Liz Cheney should face guns
Still an extremely close toss-up that Trump could win, but can anyone honestly argue that he's closing well?
https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1852410820048892085
On this 1.2/6 market, Jenrick remains a brilliant value loser (I hope).
I think even if Harris wins the likelihood is US voters also elect a GOP Congress to push for lower taxes and control spending and restrict wokeism, just for Harris to keep out Trump and his authoritarianism
https://x.com/databyler/status/1851650625022705936
Has he been insulting Chinese takeaways?
It’s helpful, from experience, to be closing a Presidential campaign with late deciding voters breaking by double digits to you and the remaining undecideds looking more friendly to you than your opponent.
Close race, turnout and 4 days of hard work will be key. But good mo.
https://x.com/davidplouffe/status/1852404433453216123
https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1852392853609046421
Labour voters prefer Jenrick to Badenoch too by 2% and LD voters prefer Jenrick by 5%
I've no answer to the long-term trend down. In part because i wasn't an adult paying at to politics from the 2010 election onwards, during which there hasn't been a big shift other than this year for the reasons I described above.
But, on a related point, the group of people voting in the 80s is almost entirely different to the group today. And cultural change that happens over 40 years is bound to impact political engagement.
You've forgotten everyone's favourite comedian already ?
(No, the other one.)
Anyway, an awful lot can happen in four years.
I've dabbled in politics at various levels for much of my adult life and I can honestly say I've never "hated" any political figure in any party. I've profoundly disagreed with a number of them on a range of issues at given times (including some in the party I support and of which I was once a member and activist).
On a different level, it can benefit a party for all the "hate" to be channelled toward the leader - sensible leaders realise this and take on the mantle of the scapegoat knowing once they are in the wilderness the wider Party can rebuild with a clean slate. John Major knew that and I think Rishi Sunak grasped it at the end too. Blame me, not my party, is a way of providing a final service to the Party.
I also agree uncritical adulation is no substitute for objective commentary but it's very difficult to be objective. The best you can hope for is to be even-handed and recognise the parties you don't support sometimes get it right and the party you do support sometimes gets it wrong.
I remember reading a reprint of an old News Chronicle from the winter of 1944. Now, it's wartime and you might expect eulogising for the allies and outright condemnation for the Germans. No, the paper praised the German effort at Arnhem calling it a "brilliant victory of improvisation" - note, they didn't condemn the British/American tactics but sometimes in politics you have to accept the other side has done well and has the right answer without necessarily condemning your side (disloyalty?).
Con 29
Lab 28
Reform 17
LDs 13
Greens 8
Labour 304, Tories 229, LDs 66, Reform 7
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=29&LAB=28&LIB=13&Reform=17&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
A BMG Research poll for i shows that just a quarter of the public feel positive about the Government’s first Budget this week, with 40 per cent disapproving of the package set out by Rachel Reeves.
Voters are much more likely to say that the measures announced by the Chancellor will leave them worse off than that they will benefit from the higher spending funded by tax rises and borrowing.
More funding for the NHS, schools and potholes are all overwhelmingly popular, according to the survey, but voters are split on the £25bn tax hike for businesses and opposed to the idea of increasing the cap on bus fares from £2 to £3.
Asked how they would vote if a fresh general election were held now, 29 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives with 28 per cent opting for Labour.
The Tories’ one-point lead is within the poll’s margin of error – but it is believed to be the first time that any published poll has shown a lead of any size for the party since December 2021, when the “Partygate” scandal was beginning to emerge. BMG’s last poll, conducted in early October, showed a five-point lead for Labour.
Reform UK is third on 17 per cent, down from 20 per cent a month ago, with the Liberal Democrats steady on 13 per cent and the Greens winning the backing of 8 per cent of voters.
Sir Keir Starmer’s personal ratings have also suffered, reaching a new low of net -26 with 23 per cent of the public approving of his performance in office and 49 per cent dissatisfied. Meanwhile Rishi Sunak, whose last full day as leader of the Conservatives was Friday, has recovered to -5 having gone into the general election on -42.
While Labour is still more trusted by the Conservatives on issues including housing, the NHS, welfare and education, the Tories hold a slim lead on the economy, foreign affairs and security.
Robert Struthers of BMG said: “Our post-Budget polling underlines just how tough the early months of a Labour government are shaping up to be. In the days after Rachel Reeves finished delivering her first Budget, our polling shows Labour already trailing the Conservatives, albeit marginally. This is with the Conservatives yet to elect a new leader – they’ve managed to take a poll lead simply by letting Labour govern.
He was a superb journalist and broadcaster, and of course one of the star presenters for many years on The Morning Line.
I met him about a year ago by chance in a cafe in Bledington, where he lived. He was utterly charming, as expected.
RIP old soldier.
There is a Lib-Lab split, but (at least for now) it's a helpful efficient split; the two parties don't trip over each other in many places.
The RefCon split just hurts each party. And I don't see how they get even as far as non-aggression without a slice of centrish-right votes peeling off the Conservatives.
There's been plenty of shifts in party sizes across those various elections, but they are putting Israel's 5 elections in 3 years from a few years back to shame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–present_Bulgarian_political_crisis
My money would be on the former, but the first lead, even if ephemeral, is still worth noting.
(1) Good for Democrats as more women than men!
(2) Good for Republicans as people voting earlier are older!
(3) Good for Democrats as a lot of the early voting is from the Atlanta region!
(4) Good for the Republicans as this probably merely reflects the fact that queues will be much longer on polling day in dense urban areas!
So, you takes your money and you makes your choice.
Intuitively, I think the NV and AZ numbers look pretty weak for the Democrats (and certainly point to Trump winning them), while the other numbers look like much more of a wash.
The best compromise, I believe, is a system where people mark a paper ballot and it is then read and tabulated in real time, so the voter can confirm that the computer has read their vote correctly. There can then be spot checks: what is the vote for [x] at this polling station? Well, let's pull the paper ballots and confirm they are right.
Chancellor ‘widens the gulf’ between lucrative state and burdened private sector'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance/public-sector-pensions-rachel-reeves-inheritance-tax-raid/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3iBHJhBlN00
I wonder if we’ll ever see a blowout election of the type Reagan (or Nixon for his second term) won in America ever again?*
*in a legitimate sense, not a Gilead sense.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2024_ballot_propositions
I'm sure this one 'removed following a court ruling' would have been no trouble at all
Define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate
Sadly most others don't look to be wacky enough to be interesting, though WilliamGlenn would have liked this one
Require a personal finance course to graduate high school
Starmer -26
Sunak - 5 having gone into the election at -42
Remember too many centrists mocked Jezza but they weren't laughing on election night 2017 when he united the left behind Labour and got 40% of the vote, a hung parliament and 262 Labour MPs.
Even in 2019 when he lost heavily Labour got a higher voteshare under Corbyn than it had under Brown or Ed Miliband
Of course they were William.
James Heale
@JAHeale
·
11m
What a feat by Rishi Sunak, turning around a Labour lead of 20 points in just two short years
He was very good at PMQs this week too.