Utterly OT but every time I read 'Gilead' I think of 'Gil-Galad'.
The high king of the Noldor would make a better leader than either presidential candidate, but I'm not sure he'd approve the term limits.
Gilead isn’t off-topic. The GOP / evangelical “Christian” project to subjugate women mirrors chunks of what the fictional Gilead was in the early stages.
I've always taken Gilead as being the Gilead in the Old Testament, which means "Place of Refuge" (amongst others), and is the kind of misleading label that some over-literalist Evangelicals would use to justify their own view, and imagine features of their perfect world, without fully thinking it through.
Margaret Attwood has said that she was in part reacting to a resurgence of the Evangelical Right, and taking into account the Puritannical Society from 17C New England. She said, paraphrased, 'nothing is here that has not happened in reality".
There's a very intresting thread on Reddit wrt Supreme Court judgements.
It was written in 1984-5, when movements such as Reconstructionism and Dominionism on the Ev Right were trying to reimagine society patterned along lines of recreating the Old Testament in 20C USA. Some of these ideas are back now in the Trump-supporting 'Christian' demographic group. This is why I am very interested in Usonian Christian Nationalism, and how it bleeds into UK politics at the edges.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
No I think the impact of VAT on private schools will be such a significant reduction in the number of such schools that what is left won't be in a position to expand were the VAT position reversed.
The bigger the Harris win the more entertaining the response from Musk et al. We know the game plan - tell everyone that everyone is voting Trump, that every poll shows he is winning, rig the news so all you hear is He is good and she is shit. So that unless Trump wins the protests will be visceral and directable into the violence that would be needed.
But if it’s a landslide? Where the people who quietly delivered it out themselves quickly and tell men why they voted so hard? What does the idiot savant Musk do then? And what do the GOP cultists do when their Golem has been taken down and the whole world is laughing at his impotent whining - and yours?
What happens to Musk is interesting.
He has tied himself so firmly to Trump's, err, let's say, 'mast', that if the ship goes down what does he do?
If Twix is a $44B machine for electing Trump, and it doesn't work?
If the 'smartest' tech bro on the planet backed the wrong horse?
It could be epic. Or a giant nothing burger
He's just lost a lot of money - a lot if which which isn't his - on it. Otherwise, he'll probably just move on. It's not as though he doesn't have more interesting stuff to do. And, like it or not for both parties, he and the administration have to deal with each other.
The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.
In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.
Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.
One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.
Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.
Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.
I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.
Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.
Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.
I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition. Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
I think she will rub a lot of people the wrong way, particularly if she goes heavy on the social authoritarianism of the National Conservatives.
I think she is quite socially conservative herself, but the key issue is whether she wants to force that social conservatism on the rest of us, or whether she actually believes in freedom.
That's always the tricky bit for social conservatives. In theory, "I respect your freedom to go full-on Gilead in your personal life" ought to work, but in practice it doesn't. As our friends across the Atlantic are demonstrating.
I always find it interesting how vociferously left-wingers and progressive liberals argue against any pushback to their sociocultural consensus. "Stick to the economics, guys!"
Maybe they doth protest too much...
No, it's just old fashioned Liberalism. It's why I don't vote Labour or Conservative, but was swayed to vote for Cameron in 2010.
Identity politics goes against Liberalism.
That's why I oppose it.
I don't support Identity Politics.
In particular the nasty right wing populism prevalent across the world.
Yes, but you do, don't you? Provided it's the right type of identity politics, in which case you argue it isn't really anyway.
I think you may have got some of us non-right wingers wrong. Most of us couldn't really care less about taking the knee at Wembley, although we are offended by riots incited by senior politicians quoting Andrew Tate. And I couldn't really demonstrate an interest in LGBT rights.
I do have diametrically opposed opinions to yourself on certain issues but my view (probably like yours) is borne out of practicality. Take the VAT on schools issue that you keep flagging me for. Your view is you should be entitled to educate your children to the standards you desire. I agree you should, but for the privilege you should pay VAT on that lifestyle choice. I would prefer all children to have the same opportunities awarded to your children at their private school, but in a top quality state school. If the UK state sector were properly funded and as such results based on the merit of the student rather than because of their parents income the UK would ( in my view) be a richer nation.
I went to a great comprehensive school which was promoted through the will of then Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher, it was full of students whose parents could have afforded Solihull or Bromsgrove Schools but they chose not to because they didn't need to.
In order to pay for such a service a higher taxation burden is required. One question begs another and so on. But fundamentally do we want the top 7% to flourish and everyone else to flounder? I don't believe identity politics plays any part in that central theme. We would all be treated equally.
I am beginning to think that the Tory party will recover faster than most of us thought possible, The wipe out of so many Tory MPs is in some ways a benefit to Kemi. The Tories can restart with a fresh team untainted by the past issues. Jenerick's focus on Reform was a big mistake. Many of Reform's voters will never vote Tory. Remember it was the Tory party that put Tommy in jail in the first place.
Kemi needs to focus on the traditional groups of Tory voters the farmers, the small business owners and the striving middle class who want to send their kids to private schools. This along with the senior citizens can give them a base of 30-35% of the voters. The first big challenge is Scotland in May next year. I expect the Tories if Kemi delivers will do Ok and may take a couple of rural seats off the SNP.
But all you are achieving is formulating policy for a win rather than to address how to make Britain Great again. Is winning in order to hand out PPE contracts to Boris's mates the main reason for the Conservative Party existing these days?
Badenoch gave the clearest indication this morning that she will be pro business which suggest lower taxes and regulation for them
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
Yes.
All Governments always do making lasting changes.
I don't.
Which shows how out of touch you're being.
There's never been a Government not to leave a lasting change.
The sad reality is even bad policies tend to get left sometimes, let alone good ones, due to simple inertia. Its easier to not make a decision originally than to reverse one once made.
It’s not incumbent or perhaps even politically desirable at this stage for the opposition to just shrug and accept new Labour policies they disagree with. I don’t see any clanger from Badenoch on private school taxes right now.
In four years time they will have to decide if it is worth spending political capital to put its repeal in a manifesto or not. That’s when the political tactics come into play.
"The Conservative Party is most successful Party in the history of Western Democracy. It's not about changing the brand, it's about reminding people what the brand is about." 🔥🇬🇧 @KemiBadenoch #BBCLauraK
I see Reeves has been all over the news studios this morning spouting more lies to justify her idiotic budget. It will be fun watching her crash and burn - although less fun as she takes the economy with her.
At least we’re now going to have the benefit of a functioning opposition, whatever one’s views of Badenoch.
I will wait and see. Though I am not disappointed with Jenrick being rejected, my view of the Tory party is not much better than my view of Labour. And both are extremely low.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
But nowhere near as notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable as the US System
Male pollster: Tie game, we've adjusted for Trump Male pollster: Tie game, we've adjusted for Trump Male pollster: Tie game, we've adjusted for Trump Male pollster: Tie game, we've adjusted for Trump Ann Selzer: Have you boys heard of Dobbs?
People want to know how Iowa could swing towards Harris, when the state has been solidly red for so long and let me tell you, as someone who lives here & writes about this state. It’s the abortion ban. Women are furious.
It's not just those particular women. Maternity services clinics have been closing, to the extent that some women are giving birth out of state. And fairly or not (there are other funding issues beyond the resulting difficulties for practitioner insurance), Dobbs is getting blamed.
There have been a number of determined attempts to attack abortion rights in other states. From the anti-abortion states. This has riled people up, to the point that anti-abortion activists have urged toning down of such behaviour - they are worried about the effect this has on public opinion.
Of course it's an issue in every state. But in some, it's an issue which will touch (and potentially shift the vote of) some people that it wouldn't in another state.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
Superb news, and quite right too.
Education is a public good, which benefits us all. Small independent schools aren't businesses making returns for shareholders but charities helping to educate our children.
I have nothing against private schools (went to one myself for the sixth form) but that's a bit rich. I presume by 'our children' you mean the children of the well to do.
They charge a fee, yes - how could they not? - but you'd be surprised by how many working parents send children to small independent schools.
And bear in mind they both expand the education sector overall and increase the resources going into State education.
The one hopeful possibility is that the pollster-shy voters turn out to be the female family members of the vocal male Trump voters, who go to the polls and quietly vote for Harris…
That's the one that caused Jesse to lose his shit.
..if I found out my wife secretly voted for Harris, "that's the same thing as having an affair... that violates the sanctity of our marriage... that would be D Day" https://x.com/cynicalzoomer/status/1851744214071332869
I've been married over 60 years. That's quite a lot of elections, and I'm reasonably sure my wife hasn't always voted the same way as me in some of them.
We disagreed over childcare issues, too, especially as the 'children' got older but there you go.
I'm disappointed she doesn't always trust my superb and unrivalled judgement, but hey, that's life.
And Good Morning one and all. Very Novemberish....grey ...... here today.
Utterly OT but every time I read 'Gilead' I think of 'Gil-Galad'.
The high king of the Noldor would make a better leader than either presidential candidate, but I'm not sure he'd approve the term limits.
Gilead isn’t off-topic. The GOP / evangelical “Christian” project to subjugate women mirrors chunks of what the fictional Gilead was in the early stages.
I've always taken Gilead as being the Gilead in the Old Testament, which means "Place of Refuge" (amongst others), and is the kind of misleading label that some over-literalist Evangelicals would use to justify their own view, and imagine features of their perfect world, without fully thinking it through.
Margaret Attwood has said that she was in part reacting to a resurgence of the Evangelical Right, and taking into account the Puritannical Society from 17C New England. She said, paraphrased, 'nothing is here that has not happened in reality".
There's a very intresting thread on Reddit wrt Supreme Court judgements.
It was written in 1984-5, when movements such as Reconstructionism and Dominionism on the Ev Right were trying to reimagine society patterned along lines of recreating the Old Testament in 20C USA. Some of these ideas are back now in the Trump-supporting 'Christian' demographic group. This is why I am very interested in Usonian Christian Nationalism, and how it bleeds into UK politics at the edges.
A perceptive comment on the Seltzer poll. If it’s not an outlier and Iowa really is in play for the Presidential race, how come neither candidate has committed resources there during the campaign?
1: The swing may not have been detected by either campaign prior to the poll, so they didn't know it was really in play and now its too late to do much about it. 2: It may not matter - if Harris wins Iowa she's probably won enough elsewhere anyway too. 3: Its only 6 electoral votes, fewer than all other of the typically regarded 2024 purple states except for Nevada (also 6).
PA and NC are more important, even if Iowa is in play.
In the superb SNL skit, when "Kamala" says she is going to vote for Kamala she jokes back, "You're not registered in Pennsylvania by any chance?" I thought it was funny but also telling. PA is very much on her mind.
A perceptive comment on the Seltzer poll. If it’s not an outlier and Iowa really is in play for the Presidential race, how come neither candidate has committed resources there during the campaign?
OK so there are 4 possibilities: 1) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is right, Iowa isn't in play so don't commit resources 2) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is wrong, go with your priors which say Iowa isn't going to be the tipping-point state so don't commit resources 3) Selzer is right, everyone else is wrong. Harris wins all the swing states we thought were in contention. Iowa still isn't anything like the tipping-point state so don't commit resources 4) Selzer is right, everyone else is also right, except Emerson's Iowa polling for some reason. There's something in the water in Iowa. Maybe the campaigns should have committed resources there. But they're getting the same polls as everybody else, they only found out there was something in the water today!
A perceptive comment on the Seltzer poll. If it’s not an outlier and Iowa really is in play for the Presidential race, how come neither candidate has committed resources there during the campaign?
1. It's probably not in play BUT even if it's close it's bad news for Trump, especially in other midwest states. 2. It's the first Iowa poll with a Harris lead (see 1) 3. If Harris wins Iowa (which has only 6 EC votes), then she has almost certainly already won without Iowa, so it's a waste of resources campaigning there (538 gives Iowa a 0.1% chance of being the tipping point state).
A few counter-arguments:
1. Is it close? I don't trust polls generally but Emerson was +10. If Emerson is right, then Harris is likely to lose Wisconsin marginally given Trump won Iowa by less than 9, and Iowa and a large chunk of WI tend to have similar voting patterns; 2. Vance is in NH. That doesn't make sense if the Republicans think this is even remotely close given NH's votes. You would send Vance as a mid-western across to Iowa; 3, The actions of the down-ballot candidates in mid-western states. Casey, Slotkin and Baldwin have all been putting out adverts talking of their links to Trump legislation.
One other point. IIRC, someone on here on Thursday or Friday claimed that there was a poll coming out showing Harris up by +3% in Iowa quoting an internal party source. It now looks like that was Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois at a university gathering.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
There's a bit of nuance beyond 'money for NHS=good' though. And I think most voters are deep enough to understand that. We can't keep throwing money at the NHS indefinitely. I don't know what the alternative is, but we need to question the value we're getting for public money a bit more than Labour appear to be doing.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
Mr. Stereodog, my parents weren't, and aren't, well-to-do. In addition to reduced fees for bursaries, they could only afford to send me to a private school due to making sacrifices (I went abroad on holiday with them precisely once). The idea The Rich are the only ones who send children to public schools is not accurate.
I think it is possible Harris could win Iowa, Walz is certainly helping her with rural white voters.
However even if she won it I would be very wary of saying that suggests a Harris landslide, even Dukakis in 1988 and Gore in 2000 won Iowa despite losing the election overall.
What it does suggest is a map that looks more like 2000 and 2004 with Harris and Walz doing better with white voters certainly than Hillary and Kaine did and closer to Gore and Kerry's score with whites. In 2000 and 2004 both Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Gore won Iowa as stated in 2000.
If all 4 of those rustbelt bluewall and Midwest states went for Harris and Walz then Trump would need to sweep Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia and there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanics and Blacks than he did in 2020 and 2016 which helps him in the Sunbelt to do that. Bush also won all those states in 2000 and 2004 making gains with Hispanics too in particular. Trump would also need to win one of Virginia or Colorado which voted for Bush twice too but rejected Trump in 2016 and 2020. Or he would need to win New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004 and New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I believe the Nevada guru, Ralston, has said he will post later on Sunday with his latest updated view on early voting.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
Superb news, and quite right too.
Education is a public good, which benefits us all. Small independent schools aren't businesses making returns for shareholders but charities helping to educate our children.
I have nothing against private schools (went to one myself for the sixth form) but that's a bit rich. I presume by 'our children' you mean the children of the well to do.
One less well know effect of independent schools is that they keep the government a bit more honest as it gives teachers an alternative employer if they find working conditions getting bad in their schools. They are also where some very interesting new ideas are first tried out without the threat of Ofstead taking a dim view.
I remember causing a bit of consternation in one staff-room discussion on state v private by (half-jokingly) describing state schools as a necessary evil: in an ideal world every parent would earn enough to pay for their children's education in the same way we expect all but the poorest to be able to par for their food, clothing, housing, etc. Until that happy day we will just have to put up with the fact that state schools need to exist, like food-banks.
The underlying issue is that GP practices, like pharmacies, and dental and optical practices are contractors to the NHS, not employees thereof. GP practices are subject to a lot more intervention than certainly pharmacies, but they are still independent small businesses. Mostly anyway, although that's changing, and AFAIK NHS Management hasn't taken much, if any account of this, any more than it has the fact that the majority of pharmacies are owned by companies.
A perceptive comment on the Seltzer poll. If it’s not an outlier and Iowa really is in play for the Presidential race, how come neither candidate has committed resources there during the campaign?
OK so there are 4 possibilities: 1) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is right, Iowa isn't in play so don't commit resources 2) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is wrong, go with your priors which say Iowa isn't going to be the tipping-point state so don't commit resources 3) Selzer is right, everyone else is wrong. Harris wins all the swing states we thought were in contention. Iowa still isn't anything like the tipping-point state so don't commit resources 4) Selzer is right, everyone else is also right, except Emerson's Iowa polling for some reason. There's something in the water in Iowa. Maybe the campaigns should have committed resources there. But they're getting the same polls as everybody else, they only found out there was something in the water today!
5) Selzer is right but internal private Dem polling says she's wrong or at least was saying that until now. Too late to change the schedules - we are into the last 48 hours basically.
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
There are a lot of ifs and buts here with the GOP / Independent numbers (independents in the rurals, who are a small percentage, will be heavily GOP for example).
Also look at the article I posted on Arizona (happy to post again) in the New York magazine - the equivalent of a Selzer in AZ is saying that the vast bulk of Republicans are sticking with Trump even if they don't like him.
I think there is a lot of hope projection going on with the Selzer poll. It might be right but there is a hell of a lot of evidence the other way from the voting stats suggesting it will be hard for Harris - not just the NV numbers but, for example, the Black vote in NC is trending below its share of the electorate and that the Republican counties in VA seem to have significantly higher mail-in ballot return rates than the Democrat ones (which is maybe why Trump has ended up in VA).
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
Yes.
All Governments always do making lasting changes.
I don't.
But @BartholomewRoberts is correct. Although Governments do sometimes change what an outgoing government introduced, many, if not most, if not nearly all changes a government makes are not changed by an incoming government, particularly social changes. One can make a huge list of major changes that following government don't change and even support although they opposed in opposition.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
But nowhere near as notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable as the US System
One of the ironies of the debate over the structure of the NHS is the assumption that the only alternative is the US system, often by people who think that in all other aspects we ought to be more European.
I see Reeves has been all over the news studios this morning spouting more lies to justify her idiotic budget. It will be fun watching her crash and burn - although less fun as she takes the economy with her.
At least we’re now going to have the benefit of a functioning opposition, whatever one’s views of Badenoch.
I will wait and see. Though I am not disappointed with Jenrick being rejected, my view of the Tory party is not much better than my view of Labour. And both are extremely low.
i expect the Tories, Labour and Reform will all be close together roughly under 30% and over 20% in the next few polls.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
Mr. Stereodog, my parents weren't, and aren't, well-to-do. In addition to reduced fees for bursaries, they could only afford to send me to a private school due to making sacrifices (I went abroad on holiday with them precisely once). The idea The Rich are the only ones who send children to public schools is not accurate.
only because you define 'the Rich' as people better off than your parents. ymmv
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I think the 44K Republican lead is votes submitted and counted, so it is a hard number. The purpose of the blog is to determine how likely the Democrats would overturn that advantage and go on to win, bearing in mind where the remaining votes will come from and how those areas have voted in the ballots so far.
Ralston expects the Republican advantage to be reduced given factors such as those you mention but a challenge for the Democrats to completely overcome. On my understanding. It is very close however.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
No I think the impact of VAT on private schools will be such a significant reduction in the number of such schools that what is left won't be in a position to expand were the VAT position reversed.
If that happens then the funds raised will be largely or even more than used up on the education of those students, making the whole thing just a matter of spite.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
The Tories fighting last years battles - by the time the Tories come back into power (even if it's 2028) what's left of the private school sector won't need the change and probably couldn't cope with the extra demand..
You really think anything this Government does is going to last the time it takes to repeal something after their unmourned demise?
Yes.
All Governments always do making lasting changes.
I don't.
But @BartholomewRoberts is correct. Although Governments do sometimes change what an outgoing government introduced, many, if not most, if not nearly all changes a government makes are not changed by an incoming government, particularly social changes. One can make a huge list of major changes that following government don't change and even support although they opposed in opposition.
Indeed.
Anyone thinking this Government won't make any lasting changes is as naïve as those who thought that Brexit would be immediately reversed by Keir Starmer.
The truth is that all Governments make changes and when a new Government is elected its elected based on the status quo of what the last lot left you with, and the new Government is elected with its own new priorities - priorities are not simply spending five years reversing what the last lot did.
The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.
In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.
Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.
One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.
Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.
Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.
I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.
Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.
Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.
I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition. Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
I think she will rub a lot of people the wrong way, particularly if she goes heavy on the social authoritarianism of the National Conservatives.
I think she is quite socially conservative herself, but the key issue is whether she wants to force that social conservatism on the rest of us, or whether she actually believes in freedom.
That's always the tricky bit for social conservatives. In theory, "I respect your freedom to go full-on Gilead in your personal life" ought to work, but in practice it doesn't. As our friends across the Atlantic are demonstrating.
I always find it interesting how vociferously left-wingers and progressive liberals argue against any pushback to their sociocultural consensus. "Stick to the economics, guys!"
Maybe they doth protest too much...
No, it's just old fashioned Liberalism. It's why I don't vote Labour or Conservative, but was swayed to vote for Cameron in 2010.
Identity politics goes against Liberalism.
That's why I oppose it.
I don't support Identity Politics.
In particular the nasty right wing populism prevalent across the world.
Yes, but you do, don't you? Provided it's the right type of identity politics, in which case you argue it isn't really anyway.
I think you may have got some of us non-right wingers wrong. Most of us couldn't really care less about taking the knee at Wembley, although we are offended by riots incited by senior politicians quoting Andrew Tate. And I couldn't really demonstrate an interest in LGBT rights.
I do have diametrically opposed opinions to yourself on certain issues but my view (probably like yours) is borne out of practicality. Take the VAT on schools issue that you keep flagging me for. Your view is you should be entitled to educate your children to the standards you desire. I agree you should, but for the privilege you should pay VAT on that lifestyle choice. I would prefer all children to have the same opportunities awarded to your children at their private school, but in a top quality state school. If the UK state sector were properly funded and as such results based on the merit of the student rather than because of their parents income the UK would ( in my view) be a richer nation.
I went to a great comprehensive school which was promoted through the will of then Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher, it was full of students whose parents could have afforded Solihull or Bromsgrove Schools but they chose not to because they didn't need to.
In order to pay for such a service a higher taxation burden is required. One question begs another and so on. But fundamentally do we want the top 7% to flourish and everyone else to flounder? I don't believe identity politics plays any part in that central theme. We would all be treated equally.
I am beginning to think that the Tory party will recover faster than most of us thought possible, The wipe out of so many Tory MPs is in some ways a benefit to Kemi. The Tories can restart with a fresh team untainted by the past issues. Jenerick's focus on Reform was a big mistake. Many of Reform's voters will never vote Tory. Remember it was the Tory party that put Tommy in jail in the first place.
Kemi needs to focus on the traditional groups of Tory voters the farmers, the small business owners and the striving middle class who want to send their kids to private schools. This along with the senior citizens can give them a base of 30-35% of the voters. The first big challenge is Scotland in May next year. I expect the Tories if Kemi delivers will do Ok and may take a couple of rural seats off the SNP.
Scotland isn't up until 2026, next year it is only shire county council seats and the odd unitary up.
Given the Tories got 36% and Labour 29% last time those seats were up in 2021 I expect both to lose seats to Reform and also but to a lesser extent the LDs and Greens and Independents
I had settled my mind into accepting that america had lost its collective mind and was going to elect Trump 2.0 and we all just have to hope some how the constitution holds and that he doesn't plunge us into an economic depression and/or war.
IMO she's floundering at this point, and is vulnerable to being skewered on details - but Sir Keir needs some rhetoric/narrative as well, which we have not yet seen very much.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
Superb news, and quite right too.
Education is a public good, which benefits us all. Small independent schools aren't businesses making returns for shareholders but charities helping to educate our children.
I have nothing against private schools (went to one myself for the sixth form) but that's a bit rich. I presume by 'our children' you mean the children of the well to do.
They charge a fee, yes - how could they not? - but you'd be surprised by how many working parents send children to small independent schools.
And bear in mind they both expand the education sector overall and increase the resources going into State education.
Thanks for the response and as I said I don't have it in for private schools at all. I just don't think it helps their cause to overdo the argument in their favour. Providing a good education I'm exchange for money is no bad thing but it's not charitable. Fixing people's water supply in exchange for money (i.e. being a plumber) is a good and necessary service but we still tax the income the plumber receives.
Great work from Selzer. And also from Ralston. Amazing how these niche operators, both in small states worth only 6 votes, have really shifted the main WH market with their analysis, I guess because of their genuine local expertise and reputation for integrity. So, first Ralston with his Nevada blog moves Trump in by 15 pts in the betting, then Selzer comes in for Iowa and it's the reverse.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
I think it is possible Harris could win Iowa, Walz is certainly helping her with rural white voters.
However even if she won it I would be very wary of saying that suggests a Harris landslide, even Dukakis in 1988 and Gore in 2000 won Iowa despite losing the election overall.
What it does suggest is a map that looks more like 2000 and 2004 with Harris and Walz doing better with white voters certainly than Hillary and Kaine did and closer to Gore and Kerry's score with whites. In 2000 and 2004 both Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Gore won Iowa as stated in 2000.
If all 4 of those rustbelt bluewall and Midwest states went for Harris and Walz then Trump would need to sweep Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia and there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanics and Blacks than he did in 2020 and 2016 which helps him in the Sunbelt to do that. Bush also won all those states in 2000 and 2004 making gains with Hispanics too in particular. Trump would also need to win one of Virginia or Colorado which voted for Bush twice too but rejected Trump in 2016 and 2020. Or he would need to win New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004 and New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000
Which explains Vance in New Hampshire. The other three aren’t really prospects. I doubt NH is either, but Vance at least has a slightly better fit with the state vibe.
Harris doing better in the sunbelt and worse in the bluewall than most other pollsters there, though Trump still leads in Arizona and she still leads in Wisconsin
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
To be honest I have no stress as I have no doubt Harris will win
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I believe the Nevada guru, Ralston, has said he will post later on Sunday with his latest updated view on early voting.
That's one prediction that should prove reliable *.
* Subject to him tripping over his shoelaces and breaking a leg.
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I think the 44K Republican lead is votes submitted and counted, so it is a hard number. The purpose of the blog is to determine how likely the Democrats would overturn that advantage and go on to win, bearing in mind where the remaining votes will come from and how those areas have voted in the ballots so far.
Ralston expects the Republican advantage to be reduced given factors such as those you mention but a challenge for the Democrats to completely overcome. On my understanding. It is very close however.
Is it a hard number? I know nothing about how it works, but if these were hard numbers and not just affiliations of those who voted then we would also know how Indies have broken and we don't.
So surely these are just affiliated votes which doesn't mean these voters have voted according to their affiliation.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
To be honest I have no stress as I have no doubt Harris will win
Let's all be positive
I hope you're right Big G. However, I'm not persuaded that my lack of positivity will have any bearing on the result.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
But nowhere near as notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable as the US System
One of the ironies of the debate over the structure of the NHS is the assumption that the only alternative is the US system, often by people who think that in all other aspects we ought to be more European.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
To be honest I have no stress as I have no doubt Harris will win
Let's all be positive
I hope you're right Big G. However, I'm not persuaded that my lack of positivity will have any bearing on the result.
I have been confident for quite some time and I expect she will win comfortably
However, I have no idea how good a POTUS she will be but not being Trump is a start
I think it is possible Harris could win Iowa, Walz is certainly helping her with rural white voters.
However even if she won it I would be very wary of saying that suggests a Harris landslide, even Dukakis in 1988 and Gore in 2000 won Iowa despite losing the election overall.
What it does suggest is a map that looks more like 2000 and 2004 with Harris and Walz doing better with white voters certainly than Hillary and Kaine did and closer to Gore and Kerry's score with whites. In 2000 and 2004 both Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Gore won Iowa as stated in 2000.
If all 4 of those rustbelt bluewall and Midwest states went for Harris and Walz then Trump would need to sweep Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia and there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanics and Blacks than he did in 2020 and 2016 which helps him in the Sunbelt to do that. Bush also won all those states in 2000 and 2004 making gains with Hispanics too in particular. Trump would also need to win one of Virginia or Colorado which voted for Bush twice too but rejected Trump in 2016 and 2020. Or he would need to win New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004 and New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000
Which explains Vance in New Hampshire. The other three aren’t really prospects. I doubt NH is either, but Vance at least has a slightly better fit with the state vibe.
Virginia and Colorado probably not as too many graduates there now in both states for Trump to win them.
New Mexico maybe though, it is much more working class than Virginia and Colorado and also has a lot of Hispanics who polls suggest Trump has made gains with since 2020. Hence Trump held a rally in New Mexico last week
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
But nowhere near as notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable as the US System
One of the ironies of the debate over the structure of the NHS is the assumption that the only alternative is the US system, often by people who think that in all other aspects we ought to be more European.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How does Selzer call people when people don't have landline phones anymore?
Although I suppose in America they have the weird system where mobile numbers have a geographic area, so it may not be such an issue?
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well that is interesting to know. If it's women pushing Harris, then it would explain why Harris' campaign has put out the advert showing women ignoring their husbands in the voting booth.
That was conducted on behalf of Real Clear Politics ! I’d hope it didn’t effect their poll but RCP is another Trump arse licker.
There are very many Trump arse-lickers, including right here on PB. I have been somewhat surprised at the identity of otherwise sane PBers who have their tonsils permanently glued to Trump’s nether regions.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How does Selzer call people when people don't have landline phones anymore?
Although I suppose in America they have the weird system where mobile numbers have a geographic area, so it may not be such an issue?
Sorry, I don't know how she does the contacts. I probably shouldn't have said "calls people up".
I'm going by the podcast I linked in the previous thread if people are interested.
That was conducted on behalf of Real Clear Politics ! I’d hope it didn’t effect their poll but RCP is another Trump arse licker.
There are very many Trump arse-lickers, including right here on PB. I have been somewhat surprised at the identity of otherwise sane PBers who have their tonsils permanently glued to Trump’s nether regions.
Andrew Rosindell unsurprisingly backed Trump on BBC Politics London this morning
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I think the 44K Republican lead is votes submitted and counted, so it is a hard number. The purpose of the blog is to determine how likely the Democrats would overturn that advantage and go on to win, bearing in mind where the remaining votes will come from and how those areas have voted in the ballots so far.
Ralston expects the Republican advantage to be reduced given factors such as those you mention but a challenge for the Democrats to completely overcome. On my understanding. It is very close however.
Is it a hard number? I know nothing about how it works, but if these were hard numbers and not just affiliations of those who voted then we would also know how Indies have broken and we don't.
So surely these are just affiliated votes which doesn't mean these voters have voted according to their affiliation.
Sorry I should have looked at the tables. I thought that figure is the actual vote, not the affiliation of those that voted. Ignore everything I said, as usual. It is still very close however.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
she just announced the Tories will vote AGAINST the Budget’s £22bn for the NHS
I think the word there is "brave"...
Or "sensible", as the NHS gives poor results for the money spent on it and is, even by public sector standards, notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable.
Sort of like the EU really, except maybe not quite as bad.
But nowhere near as notoriously wasteful, inefficient and insatiable as the US System
One of the ironies of the debate over the structure of the NHS is the assumption that the only alternative is the US system, often by people who think that in all other aspects we ought to be more European.
Italy's system I understand would be considered the closest international to what we have.
Yes, Italy, Spain and Portugal have very NHS-like systems, although there are similarities too in New Zealand, Canada and Malta, among other places. Those figures might suggest that an NHS-like system is more financially efficient than the systems used in France or Germany, or obviously that in the US.
If the Iowa poll is right it could be an absolute Harris landslide. Trump sub 209 at around 6%. He can even win Florida and that still might come in...
The Selzer poll (I mean I assume it’s that?) does appear to have shifted the markets. Trump is out to 1.78 now.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well that is interesting to know. If it's women pushing Harris, then it would explain why Harris' campaign has put out the advert showing women ignoring their husbands in the voting booth.
The ad showing that posted above was by an independent group, not Harris’s campaign.
Kemi Badenoch says she would reverse the introduction of VAT on private school fees.
Labour popping champagne corks.
Superb news, and quite right too.
Education is a public good, which benefits us all. Small independent schools aren't businesses making returns for shareholders but charities helping to educate our children.
I have nothing against private schools (went to one myself for the sixth form) but that's a bit rich. I presume by 'our children' you mean the children of the well to do.
They charge a fee, yes - how could they not? - but you'd be surprised by how many working parents send children to small independent schools.
And bear in mind they both expand the education sector overall and increase the resources going into State education.
Thanks for the response and as I said I don't have it in for private schools at all. I just don't think it helps their cause to overdo the argument in their favour. Providing a good education I'm exchange for money is no bad thing but it's not charitable. Fixing people's water supply in exchange for money (i.e. being a plumber) is a good and necessary service but we still tax the income the plumber receives.
No matter how many holidays are foregone, private education is always going to be the preserve of people are much better off than the average.
Giving people who are already have wealthier upbringings, a further advantage in later life, can be many things, but it surely should never be the aim of a charity?
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well that is interesting to know. If it's women pushing Harris, then it would explain why Harris' campaign has put out the advert showing women ignoring their husbands in the voting booth.
The same phenomenon has been observed in several Western countries, including the UK, that younger women are trending left and younger men are trending right in political beliefs. There’s a PhD thesis somewhere in trying to understand why it’s happening.
As antidote to the header the only actual voting data AFAIK shows a slight advantage to Trump. Nevada is a battleground state won by Biden last time where almost all the votes are submitted and counted early. It looks very close at the moment but GOP marginally ahead.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
I think the 44K Republican lead is votes submitted and counted, so it is a hard number. The purpose of the blog is to determine how likely the Democrats would overturn that advantage and go on to win, bearing in mind where the remaining votes will come from and how those areas have voted in the ballots so far.
Ralston expects the Republican advantage to be reduced given factors such as those you mention but a challenge for the Democrats to completely overcome. On my understanding. It is very close however.
The votes are submitted but I don't think they've been counted and publicly declared yet.
I think its based on affiliation, which typically would be a 1:1 ratio with counts but not always.
How many Republicans are of a Lincoln Project tendency who will vote against Trump despite being a registered Republican is unknown.
As too for fairness is how many registered Democrats who might still vote Trump.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
To be honest I have no stress as I have no doubt Harris will win
Let's all be positive
I hope you're right Big G. However, I'm not persuaded that my lack of positivity will have any bearing on the result.
I have been confident for quite some time and I expect she will win comfortably
However, I have no idea how good a POTUS she will be but not being Trump is a start
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
Good to see you on board. I think she is in principle okay, but Cleverly would have moved the dial very much more in your favour.
It is the first time I have heard her interviewed, and she was confident and very much pro business and anti big government which is a breath of fresh air from some previous conservatives
She needs to get a grip on facts though. It has taken her less than 24 hours to make her first blunder. The increase in Employer NICs will NOT be levied on the NHS. She really should have known that.
Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".
Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive
I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them
I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
Good to see you on board. I think she is in principle okay, but Cleverly would have moved the dial very much more in your favour.
It is the first time I have heard her interviewed, and she was confident and very much pro business and anti big government which is a breath of fresh air from some previous conservatives
She needs to get a grip on facts though. It has taken her less than 24 hours to make her first blunder. The increase in Employer NICs will NOT be levied on the NHS. She really should have known that.
Here's the interview with Ann Selzer I mentioned that I posted on the previous thread. She talks about her method early on then the rest is talking about the prospects for GOP primaries that have already happened but its still quite interesting.
This podcast is really great, it also has a bunch of voters from various focus groups which is simultaneously fascinating and kind of destroys your faith in democracy. Like in a recent episode there was a woman saying the media claimed unemployment was low but she didn't believe it because when she went to restaurants they didn't have enough workers, so clearly people weren't getting the jobs.
FYI - and I haven't seen the crosstabs so maybe somebody knows better - but there are claims Selzer weighted the party registration numbers at R+2 when the actual registration gap is R+10.
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
IIUC Selzer doesn't weight party registration numbers, this is her whole thing. She does it old-school: She calls people up, spending a lot of money to get hold of them and also taking advantage of the fact that Iowans are friendly and don't have much to do, and she asks them whether they're going to vote and if so who for.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How does Selzer call people when people don't have landline phones anymore?
Although I suppose in America they have the weird system where mobile numbers have a geographic area, so it may not be such an issue?
Yep Americans will gave a geographic number - great for finding people who were local when they first got a mobile..
The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.
In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.
Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.
One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.
Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.
Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.
I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.
Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.
Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.
I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition. Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding this US election quite stressful, largely because a) it's important, and b) I've absolutely no idea who's going to win - and I don't believe anybody else knows either. It's the hope that stresses you.
To be honest I have no stress as I have no doubt Harris will win
Let's all be positive
Fair enough, but how can you possibly be so confident?
Comments
Margaret Attwood has said that she was in part reacting to a resurgence of the Evangelical Right, and taking into account the Puritannical Society from 17C New England. She said, paraphrased, 'nothing is here that has not happened in reality".
There's a very intresting thread on Reddit wrt Supreme Court judgements.
It was written in 1984-5, when movements such as Reconstructionism and Dominionism on the Ev Right were trying to reimagine society patterned along lines of recreating the Old Testament in 20C USA. Some of these ideas are back now in the Trump-supporting 'Christian' demographic group. This is why I am very interested in Usonian Christian Nationalism, and how it bleeds into UK politics at the edges.
Here's Margaret Atwood on the origins of A Handmaid's Tale (not on the themes I just mentioned, though, in this piece):
https://lithub.com/margaret-atwood-on-how-she-came-to-write-the-handmaids-tale/
I find similarities to John Wyndham's The Chrysalids, in that both are post-apocalyptic in North America, with a dark vision and an escape.
'Lack of hope being a lesson drummed into me from watching Threads on Halloween night.'
Mine has been inculcated by a lifetime of supporting Leyton Orient. May I recommend it.
And back Borehamwood to score a famous home win in the FA Cup today.
It's not as though he doesn't have more interesting stuff to do. And, like it or not for both parties, he and the administration have to deal with each other.
There's never been a Government not to leave a lasting change.
The sad reality is even bad policies tend to get left sometimes, let alone good ones, due to simple inertia. Its easier to not make a decision originally than to reverse one once made.
In four years time they will have to decide if it is worth spending political capital to put its repeal in a manifesto or not. That’s when the political tactics come into play.
@AndrewBowie_MP
"The Conservative Party is most successful Party in the history of Western Democracy. It's not about changing the brand, it's about reminding people what the brand is about." 🔥🇬🇧 @KemiBadenoch #BBCLauraK
And bear in mind they both expand the education sector overall and increase the resources going into State education.
We disagreed over childcare issues, too, especially as the 'children' got older but there you go.
I'm disappointed she doesn't always trust my superb and unrivalled judgement, but hey, that's life.
And Good Morning one and all. Very Novemberish....grey ...... here today.
I mean, it’s pretty basic stuff. Not knowing the NHS won’t have to pay the NI rise?
Tory MPs who refused to vote for Badenoch muttered she was never across the detail and she was accident prone.
She’s proving them right in her very first interview.
https://x.com/paulwaugh/status/1853017513954558289
Atwood piece in the Atlantic in 2022:
"I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real."
https://archive.ph/Fvsb6
1) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is right, Iowa isn't in play so don't commit resources
2) Selzer is wrong, everyone else is wrong, go with your priors which say Iowa isn't going to be the tipping-point state so don't commit resources
3) Selzer is right, everyone else is wrong. Harris wins all the swing states we thought were in contention. Iowa still isn't anything like the tipping-point state so don't commit resources
4) Selzer is right, everyone else is also right, except Emerson's Iowa polling for some reason. There's something in the water in Iowa. Maybe the campaigns should have committed resources there. But they're getting the same polls as everybody else, they only found out there was something in the water today!
1. Is it close? I don't trust polls generally but Emerson was +10. If Emerson is right, then Harris is likely to lose Wisconsin marginally given Trump won Iowa by less than 9, and Iowa and a large chunk of WI tend to have similar voting patterns;
2. Vance is in NH. That doesn't make sense if the Republicans think this is even remotely close given NH's votes. You would send Vance as a mid-western across to Iowa;
3, The actions of the down-ballot candidates in mid-western states. Casey, Slotkin and Baldwin have all been putting out adverts talking of their links to Trump legislation.
One other point. IIRC, someone on here on Thursday or Friday claimed that there was a poll coming out showing Harris up by +3% in Iowa quoting an internal party source. It now looks like that was Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois at a university gathering.
GPs, care homes and others will have to pay the NI rise and most people consider GPs to be part of the NHS even though they're technically not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79z87wzv2no
Republican 402k
Democrats 357k
But....
No party affiliation 301k.
They only need to split 125k R to 176k D to have the state evenly split.
And that assumes the R number doesn't include a bunch of Haley voters for Harris. Nevada had a really messed up Caucus (Trump dominated) and Primary (where Haley got 30% of the votes cast). Stick 10,000 Haley Republicans in the mix and the split only needs to be 135k Republicans to 166k Democrats amongst those No party affiliation.
Even more interesting, the designation of No part affiliation for those who get a new drivers licence should greatly skew to younger voters. Who skew greatly towards Harris.
Point is, there is no certainty that the Republican lead in Nevada is 45,000. Or indeed, any lead at all.
In the 22 billion allocated to the NHS over the next 2 years does the NHS refund the exchequer for their NI from this money ?
However even if she won it I would be very wary of saying that suggests a Harris landslide, even Dukakis in 1988 and Gore in 2000 won Iowa despite losing the election overall.
What it does suggest is a map that looks more like 2000 and 2004 with Harris and Walz doing better with white voters certainly than Hillary and Kaine did and closer to Gore and Kerry's score with whites. In 2000 and 2004 both Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Gore won Iowa as stated in 2000.
If all 4 of those rustbelt bluewall and Midwest states went for Harris and Walz then Trump would need to sweep Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia and there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanics and Blacks than he did in 2020 and 2016 which helps him in the Sunbelt to do that. Bush also won all those states in 2000 and 2004 making gains with Hispanics too in particular. Trump would also need to win one of Virginia or Colorado which voted for Bush twice too but rejected Trump in 2016 and 2020. Or he would need to win New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004 and New Hampshire which voted for Bush in 2000
I remember causing a bit of consternation in one staff-room discussion on state v private by (half-jokingly) describing state schools as a necessary evil: in an ideal world every parent would earn enough to pay for their children's education in the same way we expect all but the poorest to be able to par for their food, clothing, housing, etc. Until that happy day we will just have to put up with the fact that state schools need to exist, like food-banks.
The direct public sector is immune to the NI change, sure in theory its 'paid' but the Treasury is balancing that.
The issue is the indirect public sector, things like GPs, are actually having to fund the NI themselves like the private sector does.
Final Swing States Poll by NYT/Siena
NORTH CAROLINA
🟦 Harris: 48% (+2)
🟥 Trump: 46%
—
GEORGIA
🟦 Harris: 48% (+1)
🟥 Trump: 47%
—
WISCONSIN
🟦 Harris: 49% (+2)
🟥 Harris: 47%
—
NEVADA
🟦 Harris: 49% (+3)
🟥 Trump: 46%
—
MICHIGAN
🟦 Harris: 47% (=)
🟥 Trump: 47%
—
PENNSYLVANIA
🟥 Trump: 48% (=)
🟦 Harris: 48%
—
ARIZONA
🟥 Trump: 49% (+4)
🟦 Harris: 45%
#1 (3.0/3.0) | 10/29-11/2 | Likely voters
Also look at the article I posted on Arizona (happy to post again) in the New York magazine - the equivalent of a Selzer in AZ is saying that the vast bulk of Republicans are sticking with Trump even if they don't like him.
I think there is a lot of hope projection going on with the Selzer poll. It might be right but there is a hell of a lot of evidence the other way from the voting stats suggesting it will be hard for Harris - not just the NV numbers but, for example, the Black vote in NC is trending below its share of the electorate and that the Republican counties in VA seem to have significantly higher mail-in ballot return rates than the Democrat ones (which is maybe why Trump has ended up in VA).
And that is a damn dangerous thing.
Let’s go live to Tory headquarters
https://x.com/Weeton64/status/1852762610749395157
Ralston expects the Republican advantage to be reduced given factors such as those you mention but a challenge for the Democrats to completely overcome. On my understanding. It is very close however.
Alex Cole
@acnewsitics
The video we have all been waiting for. Kamala Harris on SNL tonight! Share to piss off Donald Trump. 🤣
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1852919444466548864
If that is correct, that is a pretty major issue. Happy to be proven wrong.
Anyone thinking this Government won't make any lasting changes is as naïve as those who thought that Brexit would be immediately reversed by Keir Starmer.
The truth is that all Governments make changes and when a new Government is elected its elected based on the status quo of what the last lot left you with, and the new Government is elected with its own new priorities - priorities are not simply spending five years reversing what the last lot did.
Given the Tories got 36% and Labour 29% last time those seats were up in 2021 I expect both to lose seats to Reform and also but to a lesser extent the LDs and Greens and Independents
Now...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0024pl9/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-03112024
IMO she's floundering at this point, and is vulnerable to being skewered on details - but Sir Keir needs some rhetoric/narrative as well, which we have not yet seen very much.
It's the hope that stresses you.
The other three aren’t really prospects. I doubt NH is either, but Vance at least has a slightly better fit with the state vibe.
Let's all be positive
* Subject to him tripping over his shoelaces and breaking a leg.
So surely these are just affiliated votes which doesn't mean these voters have voted according to their affiliation.
However, I'm not persuaded that my lack of positivity will have any bearing on the result.
The downside to this is that you risk getting thrown off-course by non-response bias. But the upside is that your data tells you who the electorate is, instead of depending on your own assumptions which might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
However, I have no idea how good a POTUS she will be but not being Trump is a start
New Mexico maybe though, it is much more working class than Virginia and Colorado and also has a lot of Hispanics who polls suggest Trump has made gains with since 2020. Hence Trump held a rally in New Mexico last week
Although I suppose in America they have the weird system where mobile numbers have a geographic area, so it may not be such an issue?
I'm going by the podcast I linked in the previous thread if people are interested.
Giving people who are already have wealthier upbringings, a further advantage in later life, can be many things, but it surely should never be the aim of a charity?
Nevada Republicans will vote Republican, as near as makes no difference.
But, for sure, the Democrats might carry the day, among independents.
I think its based on affiliation, which typically would be a 1:1 ratio with counts but not always.
How many Republicans are of a Lincoln Project tendency who will vote against Trump despite being a registered Republican is unknown.
As too for fairness is how many registered Democrats who might still vote Trump.
That poll suggests she would but by a mere 1-2%
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-focus-group-with-sarah-longwell/s4-ep15-it-s-not-that-hard-to-win-iowa-with-j-ann-/
This podcast is really great, it also has a bunch of voters from various focus groups which is simultaneously fascinating and kind of destroys your faith in democracy. Like in a recent episode there was a woman saying the media claimed unemployment was low but she didn't believe it because when she went to restaurants they didn't have enough workers, so clearly people weren't getting the jobs.
Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
OR THE WORLD??