Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
I reckon there might be something to that.
Maybe but mostly not in this case. Gregg has no power over former Masterchef contestants, or Masterchef Professional contestants, and nor do the BBC or production company because they do not work in television. We need to wait and see if there are more complaints from these groups.
Mrs J is probably right about production staff. Even most of the celebrities on Celebrity Masterchef are bigger names than Gregg Wallace.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
The reason we didn't have the aircraft at the initial commissioning of the carriers is about 10% delays to F35 and 90% planned timing.
When a new carrier goes to sea, for the first time, it has no aircraft. The crew have enough to do learning to work the ship safely. Then helicopters are added - they are easier to handle and provide safety and supplies for further operations. Then a few aircraft are carefully introduced. Then a few more.
This pattern of working up was established by the RN in the early days of carriers. And copied by everyone else. Trying to do it faster results in dead people and broken stuff. American carriers take over a year from going commissioning to embarking fixed wing aircraft.
What if they really DO have a coup and no one believes it happened?
We can’t know until tomorrow. But the thing to watch is the reactions of countries with embassies/consulates in place and/or aid workers out there in numbers.
Can’t remember off hand if we or the rest of the west still have diplomatic relations.
If there really is a coup taking place by now we'd be seeing a flood of images and videos from locals in Damascus. We are not
My guess is there has perhaps been some sporadic gunfire from rebels in the city (because rebels clearly ARE on the march elsewhere in Syria) and they're trying to spook and roil the regime while Assad is away, by making it out to be much bigger
Assad does look imperilled, however
Weren't there reports he is in Moscow currently?
Apparently landed in Damascus several hours ago...
Ah ok thanks, I'm just catching up. Have rather selfishly been focused on living my life today.
Call yourself a PBer? There is no such thing as "life"
I dunno. We once had a poster called @SeanT who had about twelve of them.
I think he retired, having made his millions as an early investor in What3Words.
I heard he retired because he correctly predicted the pandemic about a month before everyone else. But the past is shrouded in myth
No, that was someone called eadric, as I recall
Just for the record, so that I can claim this one over @Leon - the US outbreak of avian flu now spreading widely to milking cows and some pigs is gonna be a bastard human pandemic in a year or so's time.
Yes. That virus is busy mutating and edging closer to fully making the transition to a human flu.
We are pretty good at flu vaccination. Prior to 2020 there was no corona virus vaccines in existence. I wouldnt worry. I’d wait until Feigel dingbat starts shrieking.
Yes. My understanding is that there's already an H5 vaccine. But there's likely to be a bit of a gap between it definitively making the species jump and a vaccine being widely available. A shorter time compared to Covid, but some time nevertheless.
Flu tends not to be infectious without symptoms. That was the real kicker for covid. It made isolation and track and trace very, very hard. We are all scarred by covid (some very much so, as X will show) but we need to remember that covid was a 1 in a century event. We’d be bloody unlucky to get two of those in five years.
Is COVID-19 a once in a century event? It depends what you count. The 20th century had 4 pandemics with at least a million deaths, the three big flu pandemics (Spanish flu, the 1957 pandemic and the 1968 pandemic) and HIV/AIDS. Not as serious, but there was also the 1977 flu pandemic. I’d probably say we get a flu pandemic about once every 25 years.
How often we get other pandemics is harder to determine. But other pandemics are possibly becoming commoner. Since inventing the classification in 2005, the WHO has declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern 8 times already, although that’s not the same as a pandemic. Those 8 have been swine flu, 2014 polio outbreaks, the West African Ebola epidemic, Zika, the Kivu Ebola epidemic, COVID-19 and the two mpox outbreaks. (MERS notably wasn’t declared a PHEIC.) They vary in death toll. Most of those had total deaths in the thousands of lower, the exceptions being COVID and swine flu (~284,000 deaths). So, in the first quarter of the current century, we’ve had two big pandemics with COVID and swine flu.
Some really good points. I guess I’m thinking more about our response rather than just actual circulation of a nasty virus. And are you talking worldwide deaths rather than U.K.? I think the use of lockdown has not been tried before, hence my classing covid as a once in a century event. Arguably it was the asymptomatic spread which necessitated that, so maybe that’s the point of difference.
284k for swine flu is an estimate of worldwide deaths, although some other estimates go over a million. There was a lockdown used in Mexico at the start of swine flu, before we realised how relatively mild it was as a flu.
We did a lot of planning for a new flu pandemic, and then COVID came along. (East Asian countries had been more spooked by SARS and were possibly better prepared.) I think the lesson there is to expect the unexpected: the next pandemic could be very serious, but require a very different response. But if you want to focus on events more like COVID-19, i.e. respiratory stuff, then that’s probably flu or another coronavirus.
A new flu pandemic at some point is inevitable, but it might have a mortality rate nearer swine flu or nearer Spanish flu. If the latter, lockdowns might be a useful part of the government’s inventory. Vaccines should come quicker (although the advances made around the COVID vaccine mean vaccines should come quicker for most novel diseases). The MAGAesque politicisation of public health measures, however, could pose a serious risk to our responses (compare RefUK flirting with anti-vax sentiments).
After SARS (2002), MERS (2012) and COVID-19, another novel coronavirus is a clear risk. Nor should we overlook the impact of coronaviruses on farming, as with porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus.
What necessitated lockdowns? Japan avoided ever having a national lockdown through better isolation of cases, higher mask wearing and other differences. The degree of asymptomatic spread is one factor, but there are several others. I would hope good investment in public health and good preparation would mean that another COVID-19-like event could be handled better. However, the Tories, contrary to their promises, were cutting funding in these areas. I don’t know what Labour will do now.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
To the UK if he accepts money from Musk for political purposes.
That’s just xenophobia.
No, it's treason.
You have to imagine me pulling out a blackboard, with "British" on one side and "Not British" on the other, holding up cards with faces, and pointing with a pointer. Musk is not British. It's not difficult.
UK politicians are sponsored and financed in various ways by foreign entities - usually 'entirely unrelated' gigs years after they have filled those corporations' pockets with money. I don’t want our politics run by Elon Musk, but there's something quite refreshingly honest about his seeking to influence it in such a public way.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
To the UK if he accepts money from Musk for political purposes.
That’s just xenophobia.
No, it's treason.
You have to imagine me pulling out a blackboard, with "British" on one side and "Not British" on the other, holding up cards with faces, and pointing with a pointer. Musk is not British. It's not difficult.
UK politicians are sponsored and financed in various ways by foreign entities - usually 'entirely unrelated' gigs years after they have filled those corporations' pockets with money. I don’t want our politics run by Elon Musk, but there's something quite refreshingly honest about his seeking to influence it in such a public way.
From the same stable as "at least Trump lies to your face".
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
I responded to this bit separately as it is quite interesting. I do speak about such issues, but I realise it's a much more complex situation than you make out, and certainly not as one-sided. For instance, I have commented many times about the closure of Butterley, a rather unique speciality steelmaker than went unremarked anywhere. And on the fact we really, really need to keep Sheffield Forgemasters open. And I've hardly been silent on energy policy. But again, I realise that it is complex.
So you are wrong. Utterly and hopelessly wrong.
But I also point out that you have promoted Russian talking points again and again, and constantly do-down this country of ours. If you are not actively a Russian agent, then you really are a useful fool.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
I agree. Defence is one reason I've consistently said taxes should go up. But I also say that knowing that most of any increase would go to health and education, and very little to defence...
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
Nothing says "for the common man" like $100m from a far right billionaire.
Labour need to move very fast on campaign finance reform.
Tricky. Making it a separate move would be painted as a partisan act, allowing Refuk to play at being the victims once again.
There's an in-progress review of 'Electoral Registration and Conduct', based on the manifesto commitment to widening participation, but perhaps something could be added on to whatever results from that?
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
An insurance model for the NHS might not even reduce tax. The government would still need to underwrite a large section of the population, but now at inflated prices.
Nothing says "for the common man" like $100m from a far right billionaire.
Labour need to move very fast on campaign finance reform.
Tricky. Making it a separate move would be painted as a partisan act, allowing Refuk to play at being the victims once again.
There's an in-progress review of 'Electoral Registration and Conduct', based on the manifesto commitment to widening participation, but perhaps something could be added on to whatever results from that?
Fuck 'em. Rather they were poor "victims".
It’s not just about Reform surely it has to be about any political party receiving such a gift. Cannot see how it can be deemed a partisan act when it could affect any other political party at a future date as well.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
The Red Sea chaos ought to be a reminder of the importance of global sea lanes. I do wonder what Saudi and Egypt are doing though.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
Yes, and any savings to individuals (specifically: the young, healthy, and well-off who are already paying for private health cover) are those who are least likely to vote Refuk.
Their offer is nonsensical fantasy. They can get away with it for now because people aren't seriously considering them as a party of government, but if they're to become successful they'll need to face the same economic realities that confront the Tories and Labour.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
It might do for employers and individuals paying the private health insurance premiums but it would not be the government funding most of the NHS anymore
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
It might do for employers and individuals paying the private health insurance premiums but it would not be the government funding most of the NHS anymore
If it’s still coming out of your wages, are you that bothered?
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
We’re yet to see how the markets react to Trump 2.0. Milei is having problems.
Another issue that needs to be addressed. The idea of a small number of high end systems, and a small number of low end systems.
Is repeatedly an utter failure in terms of cost. It would have been cheaper to build more Type 45 than to try and save money with “less capable” ships.
The other issue is long lead time items. For artillery production, its shell bodies (the large lump of steel) that takes specialist equipment and has a long lead time. Pouring an explosive fill and making a fuse are much quicker. Plus a 155mm shell body can last forever, unfilled. It’s a shiny, single piece of high quality steel. Put it on a shelf and it’s good for hundreds of years.
So we could have a factory that makes shell bodies, just store them. A reserve of 10 million shell bodies would be seriously valuable. Probably cost a billion or 2 of the actual shell bodies once you get into that scale of manufacturing.
We also need to ensure we don’t continue to gold plate defence manufacturing, which would then hopefully carry through to other manufacturing. Fortunately, consultants won’t be a reserved occupation.
Under my UnDictatorship, management consultants will be a reserved military occupation.
Reserved for marching, arms locked, in formation, into minefields. At gun point.
They would be massacred by the advancing enemy while they were standing still reading their risk assessments.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Er, no. The A version carries nearly 40% more file internally. Like many modern fighter aircraft, it has a relatively small combat radius; the difference between the versions is quite significant in an air defence role. Not just range, but the capacity to operate at max speed/power for longer matters a lot. (It also has a higher g rating.)
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
I wouldn't want him (or Torode) in my kitchen. Or at least, if they were, they would end up covered in the contents of the pan he moment they *dared* to criticise my cooking.
(I am not a good cook).
I was not an avid watcher, but my impression is that Loyd-Grossman was a 'kinder' critic.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
So Reform are unwilling to accept the 'drop in the ocean' WFA cut but you think they'd manage to axe most NHS spending and slash pensions.
I don't know what's more deluded - thinking that Reform would promise to do that or thinking that Reform would manage to do that even if they were elected.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
So Reform are unwilling to accept the 'drop in the ocean' WFA cut but you think they'd manage to axe most NHS spending and slash pensions.
I don't know what's more deluded - thinking that Reform would promise to do that or thinking that Reform would manage to do that even if they were elected.
If they were elected of course. Farage is clear his agenda includes replacing a taxpayer funded NHS with a largely private insurance healthcare system US style. He would also likely scrap UC and replace it with contributions based unemployment benefits only. If we had a Farage government it would likely be Thatcherism with bells on plus deportation of immigrants and fanatically anti woke. Left liberals would soon even wish they could have the Tories back.
State pensions would remain although they are in part contributions based anyway based on NI contributions and credits
Ah, thanks. I wonder why? Second-hand gear from the UK or US, or is 'POLICE' actually the word for it?
Google translate claims that the Georgian for police is
პოლიცია Politsia
So my guess is that it's all second=hand gear from an English=speaking country.
Police is a French word.
Thanks.
My housemaster was also my French teacher. He said to me one day: "Jessop (*), you can't even speak English properly. How the hell am I expected to teach you French?"
My parents spent a lot of money for me to get that sort of abuse.
(*) He used my real name. obvs. He had no idea I would use a pseudonym of an 19th Century engineer two decades in the future...
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Er, no. The A version carries nearly 40% more file internally. Like many modern fighter aircraft, it has a relatively small combat radius; the difference between the versions is quite significant in an air defence role. Not just range, but the capacity to operate at max speed/power for longer matters a lot. (It also has a higher g rating.)
The 150 mile radius difference is the specification, as tested.
The UK government has been accused of undermining the foundations of the economy with its autumn budget, after business confidence plunged to its lowest level since the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Institute of Directors’ economic confidence index, which measures business leader optimism in prospects for the UK economy, fell to -65 in November from -52 in October, the fourth monthly fall in a row.
That is the lowest reading since the record low of -69 in April 2020, and the second worst since the index began in July 2016.
Anna Leach, the chief economist at the Institute of Directors (IoD), warned that the extent of the hit to the private sector through tax rises in the budget would undermine growth and ultimately the public finances as well.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
I wouldn't want him (or Torode) in my kitchen. Or at least, if they were, they would end up covered in the contents of the pan he moment they *dared* to criticise my cooking.
(I am not a good cook).
I was not an avid watcher, but my impression is that Loyd-Grossman was a 'kinder' critic.
Loyd Grossman's Masterchef was about who could host the best dinner party. The new format operates at a far higher standard, aiming to turn cooks into chefs, and several winners have opened restaurants.
I’d be very naive to downplay the odds of Farage becoming PM.
But the idea that Elon Musk can just give him millions from abroad seems completely unacceptable. How can anyone justify that?
I do think this week we finally saw the new Number 10 team finally getting to grips with things. They sorted out Haigh very quickly and went hard on immigration.
It would be illegal for Musk to donate to Farage
But if Musk employs Farage as an "advisor" on £20m a year, on the private understanding he funds Reform with £19m of that?
And worth every penny I am sure.
Perhaps the sooner we get Prime Minister Farage in and then out of the way the sooner we can return to the post war consensus. Although as Trump buries the US there will be no money for a Marshall Plan.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
This time next year you will be able to assess whether the destabilisation programme is working in the US.
I don't believe he is operating on behalf of any national flag so take your pick Smersh or Spectre,
Can any Reform apologist actually explain how they could possibly fill a 20 Seat Cabinet and similar number of key Deputies from the rag bag 4 Mps they currently have and candidate list.
Can someone explain when Farage actually did a full day of meaningful work.
Can any Reform apologist actually explain how they could possibly fill a 20 Seat Cabinet and similar number of key Deputies from the rag bag 4 Mps they currently have and candidate list.
Can someone explain when Farage actually did a full day of meaningful work.
Results and discussion: The physician is centrally involved in PAS and euthanasia, and the emotional and psychological effects on the participating physician can be substantial. The shift away from the fundamental values of medicine to heal and promote human wholeness can have significant effects on many participating physicians. Doctors describe being profoundly adversely affected, being shocked by the suddenness of the death, being caught up in the patient's drive for assisted suicide, having a sense of powerlessness, and feeling isolated. There is evidence of pressure on and intimidation of doctors by some patients to assist in suicide. The effect of countertransference in the doctor-patient relationship may influence physician involvement in PAS and euthanasia.
Conclusion: Many doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
So Reform are unwilling to accept the 'drop in the ocean' WFA cut but you think they'd manage to axe most NHS spending and slash pensions.
I don't know what's more deluded - thinking that Reform would promise to do that or thinking that Reform would manage to do that even if they were elected.
If they were elected of course. Farage is clear his agenda includes replacing a taxpayer funded NHS with a largely private insurance healthcare system US style. He would also likely scrap UC and replace it with contributions based unemployment benefits only. If we had a Farage government it would likely be Thatcherism with bells on plus deportation of immigrants and fanatically anti woke. Left liberals would soon even wish they could have the Tories back.
State pensions would remain although they are in part contributions based anyway based on NI contributions and credits
That Reform are promising to reinstate WFA shows that wouldn't do any of that.
Reform might claim to want spending cuts but actually promises spending increases.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
I wouldn't want him (or Torode) in my kitchen. Or at least, if they were, they would end up covered in the contents of the pan he moment they *dared* to criticise my cooking.
(I am not a good cook).
I was not an avid watcher, but my impression is that Loyd-Grossman was a 'kinder' critic.
We have stopped watching Masterchef, apart from the Professional version, because it seems that Torode only wants spicy Asian and Caribbean food, and that chefs specialising in e.g. classical French food are at a disadvantage.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Meanwhile MSM are fixated on suits, Tickets and lost phones.
You're simply complaining that SKS is a total twat.
I was pointed out on here that running a campaign where he said zilch, would come to bite him in the arse as he had built no positions on which to define his government. He still hasn't and has no ideas.
So unsurprisingly the media run with the story SKS is an arse.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
Imagine how that breaches the The Health and Safety etc at Work Act 1974 in a kitchen full of sharp cleavers. And within the Hierarchy of Control I don't think a tiny cotton sock counts as PPE.
Anyway what's with the sock? I thought his boast was he always operated full commando.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I can't deal with all of them, but some I can and they are:
@Nigelb: I'm sorry my para "THE ROLE OF THE STATE" did not communicate my intent: it started off badly, then had a double negative, and attempts to change it before it was published only made it worse. I'll rewrite it later today @Malmesbury. Your point about how the rich are treated differently. I understand your point but better enforcement doesn't work: Michael Gove was never arrested nor punished for his cocaine use, and the use of drugs and prostitutes by politicians is known and unpunished. If a law is easily bypassed by the rich, is it a good idea? @Topping: the risks outweigh the benefits. Possibly true. @Topping: you said you suspected we would see Parliament at its best. I think we did, but "best" does not equal "good enough". People gave examples and used sentimentality: they did so in a reasonable and impressive manner, but that's not the best way of arguing. I think it was Diane Abbott who argued from first principles "the State should not kill", and I thought that was better. But I think we can all say that most MPs tried hard. @theProle. thank you for your arguments with citations from the Bible. I note your "But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable." I'm not sure that's enough but it's a good start, thank you @algarkirk, @AugustusCarp2, @kinabalu: many people answered one question, but few attempted to answer most, which included you. This was not required but I was informed by your responses and thank you.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
I agree. Defence is one reason I've consistently said taxes should go up. But I also say that knowing that most of any increase would go to health and education, and very little to defence...
I set out on here last week how that could be achieved, by a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts.
I'd also consider time-limiting sickness benefit to 52 weeks, just as it is in the private sector.
Results and discussion: The physician is centrally involved in PAS and euthanasia, and the emotional and psychological effects on the participating physician can be substantial. The shift away from the fundamental values of medicine to heal and promote human wholeness can have significant effects on many participating physicians. Doctors describe being profoundly adversely affected, being shocked by the suddenness of the death, being caught up in the patient's drive for assisted suicide, having a sense of powerlessness, and feeling isolated. There is evidence of pressure on and intimidation of doctors by some patients to assist in suicide. The effect of countertransference in the doctor-patient relationship may influence physician involvement in PAS and euthanasia.
Conclusion: Many doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
Contrast with Israel's air force in Gaza attacking hospitals; contrast with scepticism about Gazan casualty figures; contrast with the complete lack of London marchers for Syrian peace.
The Hell article is the latest in a series of articles by me. They fall into three broad camps: the Measurement Series, about how we measure political concepts, the Ideas series, about current political concepts, and the Chronicle of a Bet Foretold series, about the logistics of betting wrt specific elections. Some were lost after the reorganisation, but those that are recoverable include the following (the numbers are the number of comments)
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
Odd that Trump wants even more US military spending whilst also wanting to disengage from the global policeman role.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
I find myself increasingly impatient with the State in this country. We are basically crap at pricing and managing risk properly, and this is causing most of our problems.
There are straightforward structural reforms that might be politically challenging to implement, but would free up an awful lot of money at very little detriment to our quality of life, if not improve it.
Ending triple lock for an inflation lock, time-limiting and qualifying sickness benefit, implementing social care reform with a cap and new insurance market, raising the retirement age earlier - whilst making age discrimination much harder - creating two to three new top end council tax bands, and supplementing the core NHS with social health insurance are all such examples.
We could make our defence and economy strong with the proceeds, and set-ourselves up well for the long-term.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
"What is your name?" "Don't tell him Jessop!"
If anyone hasn't yet realised Putin is an amoral, callous c*** who is happy to attack vulnerable civilian targets I still have that invisible garden bridge I can sell them.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
Odd that Trump wants even more US military spending whilst also wanting to disengage from the global policeman role.
Not odd at all. The standard American trope has always been that Republicans want a vast army but are isolationist, while Democrats want a small army but to intervene around the world.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
I agree. Defence is one reason I've consistently said taxes should go up. But I also say that knowing that most of any increase would go to health and education, and very little to defence...
I set out on here last week how that could be achieved, by a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts.
I'd also consider time-limiting sickness benefit to 52 weeks, just as it is in the private sector.
Is it? I worked in the private sector and I'm fairly sure there were a couple of people on very long term sick leave.
ETA although probably they would have been managed out in other firms.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Every opposition party wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance, it is a drop in the ocean compared to axing most NHS spending and slashing the welfare state and axing state funded solar panels and windfarms as Farage has suggested he wants to do.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
Odd that Trump wants even more US military spending whilst also wanting to disengage from the global policeman role.
Not odd at all. The standard American trope has always been that Republicans want a vast army but are isolationist, while Democrats want a small army but to intervene around the world.
But neither position is logical. If the US are going to become more isolationist they should at least get a dividend in reduced military spending. Perhaps when you get to €1 trillion a year it just assumes a life of its own.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
Contrast with Israel's air force in Gaza attacking hospitals; contrast with scepticism about Gazan casualty figures; contrast with the complete lack of London marchers for Syrian peace.
There is hypocrisy everywhere. But I'd quibble about the Gaza comparison: the claim for the number of dead in that Gazan strike were preposterous. The claim for the number killed in this strike were all to believable. If you lie about the numbers, what else are you lying about?
Also: it is a well-known Russian tactic to go after civilian infrastructure, as they have in Ukraine many, many times.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
I wouldn’t want him in my kitchen dressed like that.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
The ballot papers aren't A5. In Cavan-Monaghan they had 20 candidates, and the ballot papers have a photo for every one of them.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
Moving from the NHS to an insurance model would reduce tax, but land everyone or their employer with massive premiums to pay. Total costs would probably go up.
I find myself increasingly impatient with the State in this country. We are basically crap at pricing and managing risk properly, and this is causing most of our problems.
There are straightforward structural reforms that might be politically challenging to implement, but would free up an awful lot of money at very little detriment to our quality of life, if not improve it.
Ending triple lock for an inflation lock, time-limiting and qualifying sickness benefit, implementing social care reform with a cap and new insurance market, raising the retirement age earlier - whilst making age discrimination much harder - creating two to three new top end council tax bands, and supplementing the core NHS with social health insurance are all such examples.
We could make our defence and economy strong with the proceeds, and set-ourselves up well for the long-term.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
That was Joanna Lumley.
You are absolutely right. Apologies.
Wasn't Lumley also involved with the Gurkha campaign back in Brown's days?
Yes that's right. In 2008. She is a charmer. I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
It's not confined to you but I do find it an odd argument that because the Royal Navy is stretched we should cut it even further.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
I agree. Defence is one reason I've consistently said taxes should go up. But I also say that knowing that most of any increase would go to health and education, and very little to defence...
I set out on here last week how that could be achieved, by a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts.
I'd also consider time-limiting sickness benefit to 52 weeks, just as it is in the private sector.
Is it? I worked in the private sector and I'm fairly sure there were a couple of people on very long term sick leave.
ETA although probably they would have been managed out in other firms.
Sickness benefit via contributory ESA is already limited to 52 weeks, unless you are placed in the higher category known as 'support group'. Getting into that group is being made harder.
Gerard "The Monk" Hutch is 124 votes ahead of the last remaining competing candidate, Labour's Marie Sherlock, with 1,518 surplus votes from Fine Gael's Paschal Donohoe to redistribute in Dublin Central.
This should see Sherlock home comfortably, but it depends how many preferences the voters gave. I went down to my 5th preference. My wife went to 8. Many voters might do a lot fewer.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
Contrast with Israel's air force in Gaza attacking hospitals; contrast with scepticism about Gazan casualty figures; contrast with the complete lack of London marchers for Syrian peace.
There is hypocrisy everywhere. But I'd quibble about the Gaza comparison: the claim for the number of dead in that Gazan strike were preposterous. The claim for the number killed in this strike were all to believable. If you lie about the numbers, what else are you lying about?
Also: it is a well-known Russian tactic to go after civilian infrastructure, as they have in Ukraine many, many times.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Er, no. The A version carries nearly 40% more file internally. Like many modern fighter aircraft, it has a relatively small combat radius; the difference between the versions is quite significant in an air defence role. Not just range, but the capacity to operate at max speed/power for longer matters a lot. (It also has a higher g rating.)
The 150 mile radius difference is the specification, as tested.
I was arguing with your (wrong) conclusion, not that bit of data. 150m of combat radius equates to a good deal of combat manoeuvring. Which is essential in engagements, including at distance with missiles.
Reportedly the haggling has already begun on the ministries Fine Gael would get in compensation for Martin being Taoiseach throughout the coalition. Latest estimates have FF with as many as 48 TDs and 38 for Fine Gael. That's roughly a 5:4 ratio.
Reportedly the haggling has already begun on the ministries Fine Gael would get in compensation for Martin being Taoiseach throughout the coalition. Latest estimates have FF with as many as 48 TDs and 38 for Fine Gael. That's roughly a 5:4 ratio.
Thanks to whoever tipped Martin as next Taoiseach. Could turn out to be a winning bet. Would be nice to see more of that on here.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He had a very populist tone, and seems to exaggerate his statistics considerably - even when they generally support the trend he is observing.
GB News, Talk TV or the Telegraph are his natural locus, with red flag attached. A Michael Howard in short trousers for the 2020s. It's "prison works, lock-em-up" rhetoric, with no evaluation of proposed prison population or other implications done afaics.
The 492k prolific criminals number suggests it will be a lot more than the 85-90k we have in prison now, of whom just under 20% are on remand. For politics, I'd say someone is planning to use it to go for the Rehabilitation initiatives.
My counter would be along the lines of "this guy is a bullshit artist", were I to want to make one.
eg: We suffer under the thumb of a few career criminals – with just one-tenth of offenders generating most crime. With fairer, tougher sentences for this tiny number of career criminals we can crush crime rates by 90%. https://crushcrime.org/about-us/
Whereas, this police paper has the 10% prolific offenders doing 45% of crime, not 90%.
As reported in the last prolific offender analytical paper, there were around 492,000 offenders that meet the relevant criteria of a prolific offender during 2000 to 20161. These offenders were responsible for around 9.5 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 19 offences per prolific offender.
This compares with the non-prolific population during the same period (around 4.9 million offenders) who were responsible for about 12 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 2 offences per non-prolific offender
I'm getting drunk in a pub called the Free Press in Cambridge. A real old fashioned pub. Full of eccentrics. Great chats talking utter nonsense to locals. Real characters. Need to sober up before my formal dinner tonight.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
The ballot papers aren't A5. In Cavan-Monaghan they had 20 candidates, and the ballot papers have a photo for every one of them.
But, yes. It's probably surprisingly practical.
Given that politics is show business for ugly people - is it wise to have photos of them on the ballot papers?
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
It sounds an abstruse issue but it's important. The FAA was left with second or third rate aircraft for perhaps half of WW2, not enough and insufficiently capable - due to demands for total production by the RAF.
Cost us heavily in carriers and merchant ships when we sent them on the Med convoys under equipped when the FAA were short, and the Luftwaffe turned up.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He had a very populist tone, and seems to exaggerate his statistics considerably - even when they generally support the trend he is observing.
GB News, Talk TV or the Telegraph are his natural locus, with red flag attached. A Michael Howard in short trousers for the 2020s. It's "prison works, lock-em-up" rhetoric, with no evaluation of proposed prison population or other implications done afaics.
The 492k prolific criminals number suggests it will be a lot more than the 85-90k we have in prison now, of whom just under 20% are on remand. For politics, I'd say someone is planning to use it to go for the Rehabilitation initiatives.
My counter would be along the lines of "this guy is a bullshit artist", were I to want to make one.
eg: We suffer under the thumb of a few career criminals – with just one-tenth of offenders generating most crime. With fairer, tougher sentences for this tiny number of career criminals we can crush crime rates by 90%. https://crushcrime.org/about-us/
Whereas, this police paper has the 10% prolific offenders doing 45% of crime, not 90%.
As reported in the last prolific offender analytical paper, there were around 492,000 offenders that meet the relevant criteria of a prolific offender during 2000 to 20161. These offenders were responsible for around 9.5 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 19 offences per prolific offender.
This compares with the non-prolific population during the same period (around 4.9 million offenders) who were responsible for about 12 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 2 offences per non-prolific offender
IIRC under the coalition there was a collapse in certain crimes for a while. This was caused by ending the practise of giving bail for people who who had been given bail, reoffended, given bail…
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Er, no. The A version carries nearly 40% more file internally. Like many modern fighter aircraft, it has a relatively small combat radius; the difference between the versions is quite significant in an air defence role. Not just range, but the capacity to operate at max speed/power for longer matters a lot. (It also has a higher g rating.)
The 150 mile radius difference is the specification, as tested.
I was arguing with your (wrong) conclusion, not that bit of data. 150m of combat radius equates to a good deal of combat manoeuvring. Which is essential in engagements, including at distance with missiles.
Being able to get to the target helps. Being carrier capable means being able to pick your distance.
Which is why the RAF argument that they just need a bit more range, to replace carriers (decades old) is wrong.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
The ballot papers aren't A5. In Cavan-Monaghan they had 20 candidates, and the ballot papers have a photo for every one of them.
But, yes. It's probably surprisingly practical.
Given that politics is show business for ugly people - is it wise to have photos of them on the ballot papers?
My wife did say that the photo of one of the independent candidates ruled him out straight away. He ended up with 29 votes.
But for some candidates it will help voters see the all-important familial resemblance.
I'm getting drunk in a pub called the Free Press in Cambridge. A real old fashioned pub. Full of eccentrics. Great chats talking utter nonsense to locals. Real characters. Need to sober up before my formal dinner tonight.
Just to add I terrified a 3 year old who picked up my beer thinking it was his apple juice shouting 'Nooooo'. Ended up chatting to his mum for about an hour. It took her boy about half an hour to recover from the shock. I think I have traumatised him for life. Mum seems happy though.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He’s moved his campaign to crime and the Police.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
The police were pithed by about 15% of numbers in the mid 2010s, which would have lost "decades of experience" officers - like a Western army losing a big chunk of it's senior squaddies and NCOs. That takes one to two decades to recover from.
We also lost a lot of local knowledge such as specials and PCSOs, who were key for intelligence led policing and catching low end crime / petty crime.
Earlier we also lost things like a lot of specialist traffic officers.
And all of those together are the ones who catch car theft and crimes that follow from that, youth ASB who turn into more serious criminals if not interdicted.
But I think that the tone of Lawrence Newport is too simplistic.
I'm getting drunk in a pub called the Free Press in Cambridge. A real old fashioned pub. Full of eccentrics. Great chats talking utter nonsense to locals. Real characters. Need to sober up before my formal dinner tonight.
I remember that, from my student days. A great place to take visiting parents.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 12h If you care about constitutional government and the rule of law in the United States, you should be alarmed. Very alarmed.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Most of the HS2 money has already been spent, the tunnels have been dug, contracts have been let, and the production line for the rolling stock is being built. By the time of the next election, it'll have progressed so far that cancellation will cost money, not save it. This is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
The £22 billion for carbon capture and storage is still resting in Ed Miliband's account. No contracts have been sign4d yet. No projects have made their Final Investment Decision.
And remember, that just covers a slimmed-down version of the two "Track 1" CCS clusters. To deliver Track 1 in full, plus Track 1 expansion and Track 2, we are probably looking at over £50 billion of taxpayers money.
Comments
Mrs J is probably right about production staff. Even most of the celebrities on Celebrity Masterchef are bigger names than Gregg Wallace.
When a new carrier goes to sea, for the first time, it has no aircraft. The crew have enough to do learning to work the ship safely. Then helicopters are added - they are easier to handle and provide safety and supplies for further operations. Then a few aircraft are carefully introduced. Then a few more.
This pattern of working up was established by the RN in the early days of carriers. And copied by everyone else. Trying to do it faster results in dead people and broken stuff. American carriers take over a year from going commissioning to embarking fixed wing aircraft.
We did a lot of planning for a new flu pandemic, and then COVID came along. (East Asian countries had been more spooked by SARS and were possibly better prepared.) I think the lesson there is to expect the unexpected: the next pandemic could be very serious, but require a very different response. But if you want to focus on events more like COVID-19, i.e. respiratory stuff, then that’s probably flu or another coronavirus.
A new flu pandemic at some point is inevitable, but it might have a mortality rate nearer swine flu or nearer Spanish flu. If the latter, lockdowns might be a useful part of the government’s inventory. Vaccines should come quicker (although the advances made around the COVID vaccine mean vaccines should come quicker for most novel diseases). The MAGAesque politicisation of public health measures, however, could pose a serious risk to our responses (compare RefUK flirting with anti-vax sentiments).
After SARS (2002), MERS (2012) and COVID-19, another novel coronavirus is a clear risk. Nor should we overlook the impact of coronaviruses on farming, as with porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus.
What necessitated lockdowns? Japan avoided ever having a national lockdown through better isolation of cases, higher mask wearing and other differences. The degree of asymptomatic spread is one factor, but there are several others. I would hope good investment in public health and good preparation would mean that another COVID-19-like event could be handled better. However, the Tories, contrary to their promises, were cutting funding in these areas. I don’t know what Labour will do now.
Net zero is a similar picture - what, does he want to tear down the ten thousand or so new wind turbines that will have been built by then? Remove solar panels from people's roofs? Build new coal power stations? All the money needed to meet our 2030 NDCs will already have been invested by the next election, and there'll be firm contracts in place covering the 2035 NDCs. Reversing any of this will cost money and leave us worse off.
As for ending the single payer NHS model, that would indeed be a huge saving. Has anyone asked the voters what they think of it?
So you are wrong. Utterly and hopelessly wrong.
But I also point out that you have promoted Russian talking points again and again, and constantly do-down this country of ours. If you are not actively a Russian agent, then you really are a useful fool.
We are an island nation that is highly globalised and very sensitive to global instability.
A strong blue water navy is not a luxury if we want to be both safe and secure.
https://x.com/LukeDCoffey/status/1862990587692986879
But would Georgian police have riot shields with 'POLICE' on them in English?
Reform also wants to reinstate winter fuel allowance.
https://www.facebook.com/TheReformPartyUK/posts/reform-mps-are-backing-the-daily-express-campaign-to-restore-winter-fuel-payment/1059138038900272/
Given that there is zero chance that a Farage government would reduce spending on health or welfare.
Reform supports actual spending increases.
Their offer is nonsensical fantasy. They can get away with it for now because people aren't seriously considering them as a party of government, but if they're to become successful they'll need to face the same economic realities that confront the Tories and Labour.
Trump and Meloni and Milei want increased defence and police spending but it certainly hasn't crashed the market there
პოლიცია
Politsia
The A version carries nearly 40% more file internally. Like many modern fighter aircraft, it has a relatively small combat radius; the difference between the versions is quite significant in an air defence role.
Not just range, but the capacity to operate at max speed/power for longer matters a lot.
(It also has a higher g rating.)
(I am not a good cook).
I was not an avid watcher, but my impression is that Loyd-Grossman was a 'kinder' critic.
I don't know what's more deluded - thinking that Reform would promise to do that or thinking that Reform would manage to do that even if they were elected.
State pensions would remain although they are in part contributions based anyway based on NI contributions and credits
My housemaster was also my French teacher. He said to me one day: "Jessop (*), you can't even speak English properly. How the hell am I expected to teach you French?"
My parents spent a lot of money for me to get that sort of abuse.
(*) He used my real name. obvs. He had no idea I would use a pseudonym of an 19th Century engineer two decades in the future...
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Immigration, Health, Transport, Defence, Environment, Economy, etc
Meanwhile MSM are fixated on suits, Tickets and lost phones.
Perhaps the sooner we get Prime Minister Farage in and then out of the way the sooner we can return to the post war consensus. Although as Trump buries the US there will be no money for a Marshall Plan. This time next year you will be able to assess whether the destabilisation programme is working in the US.
I don't believe he is operating on behalf of any national flag so take your pick Smersh or Spectre,
Can someone explain when Farage actually did a full day of meaningful work.
Spivving is not a profession.
* I blame autocorrect.
Conclusion: Many doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16676767/
Reform might claim to want spending cuts but actually promises spending increases.
"Russian air strikes have killed five people near Aleppo's University Hospital, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which monitors the death toll in the country.
Russian fighter jets carried out four strikes on the hospital, SOHR says."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy5l50y76k3t
This is one of the reasons @HYUFD is wrong; instead of striking valid military targets such as military convoys, the Russian strategy is to go after civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
I was pointed out on here that running a campaign where he said zilch, would come to bite him in the arse as he had built no positions on which to define his government. He still hasn't and has no ideas.
So unsurprisingly the media run with the story SKS is an arse.
Does a US President have the authority to issue an Executive Decision declaring himself to be tax exempt?
(It worked for Hitler. Someone in the Reich HMRC sent him a tax assessment in 1934, and the reply was a declaration that he was tax-exempt:
He was given only eight days to pay off this debt. Hitler responded by ordering a state secretary of the ministry of finance to intervene, and became tax-exempt. The head of the Munich tax office declared: "All tax reports delivering substance for a tax obligation by the Führer are annulled from the start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_wealth_and_income#:~:text=Tax evasion,-Throughout his rise&text=He was given only eight,are annulled from the start.
Hitler was wealthier than Trump.)
Anyway what's with the sock? I thought his boast was he always operated full commando.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I can't deal with all of them, but some I can and they are:
@Nigelb: I'm sorry my para "THE ROLE OF THE STATE" did not communicate my intent: it started off badly, then had a double negative, and attempts to change it before it was published only made it worse. I'll rewrite it later today
@Malmesbury. Your point about how the rich are treated differently. I understand your point but better enforcement doesn't work: Michael Gove was never arrested nor punished for his cocaine use, and the use of drugs and prostitutes by politicians is known and unpunished. If a law is easily bypassed by the rich, is it a good idea?
@Topping: the risks outweigh the benefits. Possibly true.
@Topping: you said you suspected we would see Parliament at its best. I think we did, but "best" does not equal "good enough". People gave examples and used sentimentality: they did so in a reasonable and impressive manner, but that's not the best way of arguing. I think it was Diane Abbott who argued from first principles "the State should not kill", and I thought that was better. But I think we can all say that most MPs tried hard.
@theProle. thank you for your arguments with citations from the Bible. I note your "But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable." I'm not sure that's enough but it's a good start, thank you
@algarkirk, @AugustusCarp2, @kinabalu: many people answered one question, but few attempted to answer most, which included you. This was not required but I was informed by your responses and thank you.
As ever, thank you all for your responses
I'd also consider time-limiting sickness benefit to 52 weeks, just as it is in the private sector.
Chronicle of a Bet Foretold
CBF1_EUDEPARTURE https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/24/viewcode-on-the-chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold/ 539
CBF2_ALTERNATES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/22/chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold-part-2/ 490
CBF3_FINLAND https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/21/finland/ 383
CBF4_THINGRUEL https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/02/chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold-thin-gruel/ 726
The Ideas series
IDE1_UKRAINE https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/ 555
IDE2_INTERMARIUM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/ 372
IDE3_CEREMONIES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/06/ceremonies/ 811
IDE4_TRANSHUMANISM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/07/transhumanism/ 501
IDE5_HISTORY https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/ 359
IDE5_SOLARPUNK https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/05/12/solarpunk/ 271
IDE6_BLOB https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/09/28/the-blob/ 346
IDE7_HELL https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/29/hell/ 559
The Measurement series
MEA1_CLASSIFICATION https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/07/classification/ 369
MEA2_ELITES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/13/elites/ 511
MEA3_PARTIES https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/06/05/parties/ 2078
Other
REV1_BADBOYS https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/15/the-bad-boys-of-brexit-a-review/ 500
REV2_NATIONALPOPULISM https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/10/06/national-populism-the-revolt-against-liberal-democracy-a-review/ 264
There are straightforward structural reforms that might be politically challenging to implement, but would free up an awful lot of money at very little detriment to our quality of life, if not improve it.
Ending triple lock for an inflation lock, time-limiting and qualifying sickness benefit, implementing social care reform with a cap and new insurance market, raising the retirement age earlier - whilst making age discrimination much harder - creating two to three new top end council tax bands, and supplementing the core NHS with social health insurance are all such examples.
We could make our defence and economy strong with the proceeds, and set-ourselves up well for the long-term.
If anyone hasn't yet realised Putin is an amoral, callous c*** who is happy to attack vulnerable civilian targets I still have that invisible garden bridge I can sell them.
ETA although probably they would have been managed out in other firms.
Also: it is a well-known Russian tactic to go after civilian infrastructure, as they have in Ukraine many, many times.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
But, yes. It's probably surprisingly practical.
Snake charmer
This should see Sherlock home comfortably, but it depends how many preferences the voters gave. I went down to my 5th preference. My wife went to 8. Many voters might do a lot fewer.
There have been dozens on hospitals.
150m of combat radius equates to a good deal of combat manoeuvring. Which is essential in engagements, including at distance with missiles.
GB News, Talk TV or the Telegraph are his natural locus, with red flag attached. A Michael Howard in short trousers for the 2020s. It's "prison works, lock-em-up" rhetoric, with no evaluation of proposed prison population or other implications done afaics.
The 492k prolific criminals number suggests it will be a lot more than the 85-90k we have in prison now, of whom just under 20% are on remand. For politics, I'd say someone is planning to use it to go for the Rehabilitation initiatives.
My counter would be along the lines of "this guy is a bullshit artist", were I to want to make one.
eg:
We suffer under the thumb of a few career criminals – with just one-tenth of offenders generating most crime. With fairer, tougher sentences for this tiny number of career criminals we can crush crime rates by 90%.
https://crushcrime.org/about-us/
Whereas, this police paper has the 10% prolific offenders doing 45% of crime, not 90%.
As reported in the last prolific offender analytical paper, there were around 492,000 offenders that meet the relevant criteria of a prolific offender during 2000 to 20161. These offenders were responsible for around 9.5 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 19 offences per prolific offender.
This compares with the non-prolific population during the same period (around 4.9 million offenders) who were responsible for about 12 million crimes during their criminal pathway, an average of 2 offences per non-prolific offender
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bec4af8e5274a0838df55c9/prolific-offenders-experimental-statistics.pdf
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. allegedly intends to require Coca-Cola to begin using Cane Sugar instead of High-Fructose Syrup as HHS Secretary.
https://x.com/realTrumpNewsX/status/1862630636126687702
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
For us.
Cost us heavily in carriers and merchant ships when we sent them on the Med convoys under equipped when the FAA were short, and the Luftwaffe turned up.
Instantly the number on remand jumped.
Which is why the RAF argument that they just need a bit more range, to replace carriers (decades old) is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Georgia_(country)
But for some candidates it will help voters see the all-important familial resemblance.
This should be a hoot.
(Sorry. Currently reading Ellis 'The sharp end of war' on the rather miserable and sometimes short life of the Allied squaddie in ww2.)
The police were pithed by about 15% of numbers in the mid 2010s, which would have lost "decades of experience" officers - like a Western army losing a big chunk of it's senior squaddies and NCOs. That takes one to two decades to recover from.
We also lost a lot of local knowledge such as specials and PCSOs, who were key for intelligence led policing and catching low end crime / petty crime.
Earlier we also lost things like a lot of specialist traffic officers.
And all of those together are the ones who catch car theft and crimes that follow from that, youth ASB who turn into more serious criminals if not interdicted.
But I think that the tone of Lawrence Newport is too simplistic.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
12h
If you care about constitutional government and the rule of law in the United States, you should be alarmed. Very alarmed.
https://x.com/BillKristol
And remember, that just covers a slimmed-down version of the two "Track 1" CCS clusters. To deliver Track 1 in full, plus Track 1 expansion and Track 2, we are probably looking at over £50 billion of taxpayers money.
And remember where it is going - BP, ENI, etc.