Like Thatcher in her first term Starmer finds himself third in the polls – politicalbetting.com
Full write-up and data tables here: https://t.co/JOnbHVYabjIncludes discussion of why the Labour vote share is so low, and how our voting intention methodology differs from other polling companies
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
Electoral Calculus gives Tories 219 seats, Labour 207, Reform 95 and LDs 67, SNP 22 and Greens 6 and Plaid 4 on the dramatic new FindOutNow poll this afternoon.
So neither Tories nor Reform nor Lab and LDs combined would have a majority.
Tories + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP would be on 321 and Labour + LDs + Greens + SNP + Plaid + Independents + Alliance + SF + SDLP if took seats + Independents would be on 322 so both still short.
Though Starmer could scrape home as PM if SF took seats, otherwise Badenoch would likely lead a minority Tory government with Reform and DUP confidence and supply
Electoral Calculus gives Tories 219 seats, Labour 207, Reform 95 and LDs 67, SNP 22 and Greens 6 and Plaid 4 on the dramatic new FindOutNow poll this afternoon.
So neither Tories nor Reform nor Lab and LDs combined would have a majority.
Tories + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP would be on 321 and Labour + LDs + Greens + SNP + Plaid + Independents + Alliance + SF if took seats + Independents would be on 322 so both still short.
Though Starmer could scrape home as PM if SF took seats, otherwise Badenoch would likely lead a minority Tory government with Reform and DUP confidence and supply
I doubt the DUP and UUP would combine happily over much. Nor the Independents with SKS's Labour.
Electoral Calculus gives Tories 219 seats, Labour 207, Reform 95 and LDs 67, SNP 22 and Greens 6 and Plaid 4 on the dramatic new FindOutNow poll this afternoon.
So neither Tories nor Reform nor Lab and LDs combined would have a majority.
Tories + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP would be on 321 and Labour + LDs + Greens + SNP + Plaid + Independents + Alliance + SF if took seats + Independents would be on 322 so both still short.
Though Starmer could scrape home as PM if SF took seats, otherwise Badenoch would likely lead a minority Tory government with Reform and DUP confidence and supply
Trouble is electoral calculus doesn't really work in this scenario (and lots of others as well) does it? I would anticipate that Reform will be overstated because of FPTP, demographics and targeting and that either or both Tory/Lab will be higher.
I was challenged in the week to prove Thatchers in popularity before she had the Belgtano sunk??
Somebody, I don't remember who, mentioned the Tubular Bells Morse Code message recently.
Given the ULF transmitters were used to send submarine orders, the question must be, is the order to sink the Belgrano lurking in some Black Sabbath album?
I was challenged in the week to prove Thatchers in popularity before she had the Belgtano sunk??
Somebody, I don't remember who, mentioned the Tubular Bells Morse Code message recently.
Given the ULF transmitters were used to send submarine orders, the question must be, is the order to sink the Belgrano lurking in some Black Sabbath album?
At that speed? Must be something short like a nursery rhyme tune.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
You've been condemning the flat rate WFP for decades, or so it seems! S Suddenly it's the best thing since the Chorleywood Process and bread slicers were invented?
I am content for it to be means tested, but Sky said it was the singular worst policy and would define Reeves budget
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Do you deserve the WFP when one in three children are in poverty? It is nonetheless bad politics.
The questions after Starmer's lacklustre speech today suggest Farage is running the agenda. Incredulity from the not very bright Beth Rigby that Starmer had no immigration number. Like immigration numbers have been a reliable indicator of immigration control. Nigel is pulling the strings.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
I may or may not have said it here, but I’ve certainly said elsewhere that Cummings’ diagnosis of the state we’re in was on point.
You might disagree with his solutions (they certainly took an “everything will be fine if we just hand governance to a bunch of tech nerds, nothing can ever go wrong with this plan” approach to problem solving that felt very naive to me.) but I this his analysis was pretty sound.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
Making it taxable would have been better. And I'm a taxpaying OAP.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
It's pretty simple - merge NICs and income tax, reform council tax, entirely privatise social care with mandatory insurance, adjust QALYs to put more weight on children and working adults.
Given they have rubbish polling numbers anyway, Labour had a golden chance to fix all this at the budget. So did the Conservatives in the spring, in the face of inevitable defeat. Cowardice everywhere.
To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, it took her a couple of years to end up third in the polls (yes I know that the SDP hadn’t been formed in 1979).
It’s taken SKS 5 months.
Although this has absolutely no bearing on where people will be in 4 years time, I will just enjoy a slight feeling of mirth that Labour find themselves in such a predicament. Much of the last 5 months has been a complete unforced error; and while I agree with those who say that they need to be given time, my initial feelings of disappointment with them have led me to crack a little smile at this poll.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
Making it taxable would have been better. And I'm a taxpaying OAP.
And why, when I was working part-time, wasn't I paying NIC?
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, it took her a couple of years to end up third in the polls (yes I know that the SDP hadn’t been formed in 1979).
It’s taken SKS 5 months.
Although this has absolutely no bearing on where people will be in 4 years time, I will just enjoy a slight feeling of mirth that Labour find themselves in such a predicament. Much of the last 5 months has been a complete unforced error; and while I agree with those who say that they need to be given time, my initial feelings of disappointment with them have led me to crack a little smile at this poll.
Thatcher also had the Falklands War to revive her poll rating
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
He certainly did have a moan about Whitehall. But what I will say on that front is that there wasn’t anything concrete about what he wanted to do to reform it. This is like a lot of SKS’s speeches. He talks about problems and things needing reform but he never actually follows up with what he’s going to do to fix it.
He gave the impression that he was going to make Whitehall more productive by sheer force of will, which I think we all know is destined to fail.
CHINESE EMBASSY IN DAMASCUS: Syrian security situation has further deteriorated, Chinese citizens should flee the country while commercial flights are still in operation. https://x.com/KareemRifai/status/1864671406853665118
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
It's pretty simple - merge NICs and income tax, reform council tax, entirely privatise social care with mandatory insurance, adjust QALYs to put more weight on children and working adults.
Given they have rubbish polling numbers anyway, Labour had a golden chance to fix all this at the budget. So did the Conservatives in the spring, in the face of inevitable defeat. Cowardice everywhere.
Completely agree that the solutions are straightforward! (Subject to the usual issues with doing anything at national scale in a modern nation) The barriers are political, not practical.
If Labour were popular now, they would have to be ducking the big decisions. I still think they are to some extent, but the plan is and has to be... do the unpopular stuff now and hope it pays off in 2029.
The other thing is polls before election overstated Lab lead. Even if no one had changed their minds, they would still be down 5%+.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
Cough up or be euthanised - the theme of Leonard Rossiter’s last play, Sharp Ends, which seems quite prescient.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
It's pretty simple - merge NICs and income tax, reform council tax, entirely privatise social care with mandatory insurance, adjust QALYs to put more weight on children and working adults.
Given they have rubbish polling numbers anyway, Labour had a golden chance to fix all this at the budget. So did the Conservatives in the spring, in the face of inevitable defeat. Cowardice everywhere.
And they could also block alll the tax-evasion loopholes of the super-rich.
I was challenged in the week to prove Thatchers in popularity before she had the Belgtano sunk??
Somebody, I don't remember who, mentioned the Tubular Bells Morse Code message recently.
Given the ULF transmitters were used to send submarine orders, the question must be, is the order to sink the Belgrano lurking in some Black Sabbath album?
The Captains Log of the vessel that sank the Belgtano was allegedly doing the rounds in the back streets of Dugbeth at one time in the 90s
I was challenged in the week to prove Thatchers in popularity before she had the Belgtano sunk??
Somebody, I don't remember who, mentioned the Tubular Bells Morse Code message recently.
Given the ULF transmitters were used to send submarine orders, the question must be, is the order to sink the Belgrano lurking in some Black Sabbath album?
The Captains Log of the vessel that sank the Belgtano was allegedly doing the rounds in the back streets of Dugbeth at one time in the 90s
The hilarious bit about that story is that, because the various partisans of the "cover up" only wanted to "get" Thatcher, they missed the real story.
The key is that the log at Northwood, and the recollections of those involved match.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
Funnily enough, if your wishes came to pass and we had a Reform-led government, I reckon you'd hate the reality. They'd have no time at all for cultured, literary, globe-trotting citizens of nowhere like you, and in no time at all you'd be criticising their shallow philistinism. However, I guess you're used to regretting your vote.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Potentially, but FPTP is breaking as the party loyalties fray. I think it’s entirely possible if (if doing a lot of heavy lifting here) LAB, REF and CON do go into the next GE on similar vote shares you could have a weird geographic split whereby the Tories make back some ground in the shires, midlands towns and south west but REF dominate in the red wall and the East.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Potentially, but FPTP is breaking as the party loyalties fray. I think it’s entirely possible if (if doing a lot of heavy lifting here) LAB, REF and CON do go into the next GE on similar vote shares you could have a weird geographic split whereby the Tories make back some ground in the shires, midlands towns and south west but REF dominate in the red wall and the East.
On these vote distributions, it becomes very clear what a shit system FPTP is.
Electoral Calculus gives Tories 219 seats, Labour 207, Reform 95 and LDs 67, SNP 22 and Greens 6 and Plaid 4 on the dramatic new FindOutNow poll this afternoon.
So neither Tories nor Reform nor Lab and LDs combined would have a majority.
Tories + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP would be on 321 and Labour + LDs + Greens + SNP + Plaid + Independents + Alliance + SF + SDLP if took seats + Independents would be on 322 so both still short.
Though Starmer could scrape home as PM if SF took seats, otherwise Badenoch would likely lead a minority Tory government with Reform and DUP confidence and supply
Yeah, but Electoral Calculus breaks with these sorts of numbers. You can't take these predictions particularly seriously.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Potentially, but FPTP is breaking as the party loyalties fray. I think it’s entirely possible if (if doing a lot of heavy lifting here) LAB, REF and CON do go into the next GE on similar vote shares you could have a weird geographic split whereby the Tories make back some ground in the shires, midlands towns and south west but REF dominate in the red wall and the East.
I wonder if my grandparents thought similarly in the 20's? Especially as the franchise was shortly to be extended so that women between 21 and 30 could vote!
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Just as an experiment, I typed "I love Nigel and want him to be the next PM" into Electoral Calculus. Guess what? It came up with Farage having a ginormous majority.
Didn't Thatcher have to invade the Falklands to win in '83?
Not according to the contents of a thread on here earlier this year.
Although after Trump has handed over the EU to Russia we'll be defending the White Cliffs of Dover rather than retaking Port Stanley.
If Starmer surprises everyone and defies Trump to lead Europe's support for a victorious Ukraine, I expect he'd bungle the politics of it, fail to gain the credit for it, and still lose the next election.
On the BBC's 1983 election night show, which went on for more than 10 hours, the Falklands War was mentioned precisely once, by David Owen IIRC. If it had been an important factor in the result, you would have expected it to have been referenced a lot more.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
You've been condemning the flat rate WFP for decades, or so it seems! S Suddenly it's the best thing since the Chorleywood Process and bread slicers were invented?
I am content for it to be means tested, but Sky said it was the singular worst policy and would define Reeves budget
I thoiught you didn't like bureaucracy? But the SNP solution is at least some sort of compromise.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Potentially, but FPTP is breaking as the party loyalties fray. I think it’s entirely possible if (if doing a lot of heavy lifting here) LAB, REF and CON do go into the next GE on similar vote shares you could have a weird geographic split whereby the Tories make back some ground in the shires, midlands towns and south west but REF dominate in the red wall and the East.
I wonder if my grandparents thought similarly in the 20's? Especially as the franchise was shortly to be extended so that women between 21 and 30 could vote!
Yes, they did. There was a Private Member's Bill in April 1921 to introduce STV, defeated 211 to 112. The Liberals attempted to introduce AV in 1923, defeated 208 to 178. Another PMB came May 1924 for STV, defeated 240 to 146. The Labour (minority) government with Liberal support then introduced a Representation of the People Bill in January 1931 that included switching to AV. The bill passed its second reading in the Commons and the committee stage. The Lords tried to introduce an amendment to have STV for some constituencies, but that got nowhere. There was then a successful amendment limiting AV to only some constituencies. But the Labour government fell and the bill lost.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Adam is an important (the first) prophet in Islam, so it's a consistent way to integrate.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
As someone who does quite a lot of Family History I've only ever found half-a dozen other people with my first name.
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
LOL, some of us have been saying this for years.
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
On the BBC's 1983 election night show, which went on for more than 10 hours, the Falklands War was mentioned precisely once, by David Owen IIRC. If it had been an important factor in the result, you would have expected it to have been referenced a lot more.
Perhaps because its role was taken for granted ? I recall the 83 election fairly well - it was the first I voted in. It seems absurd to me to argue it wasn't significant.
Thatcher would likely have lost against a united Labour Party under a moderate, of course.
On the BBC's 1983 election night show, which went on for more than 10 hours, the Falklands War was mentioned precisely once, by David Owen IIRC. If it had been an important factor in the result, you would have expected it to have been referenced a lot more.
That does seem odd. But how do you know this as a matter of interest? Is it something you've watched recently?
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Adam is an important (the first) prophet in Islam, so it's a consistent way to integrate.
Adam was the first messenger, but not a prophet. Noah (2nd most popular UK boy's name) was the first prophet.
I do not understand what the difference between a messenger and a prophet is.
Last night Sky showed labour's most popular policy was raising the NMW and least by some distance was removing the WFP
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Someone somewhere will have to explain to me one day why Labour thought it was good for their first thing to be 'lets screw over the pensioners'.
Somehow pensioners are going to have to be made to pay more tax because everyone else is basically tapped out. Given that almost all the growth in government expenditure is going on pensioners (pensions, NHS, social care) this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but implementing it is going to be a conundrum for any government.
I agree (I am one) that pensioners should pay more tax, and this should be on the same basis as working people - either merge NI with IT or put NI onto pensioners as well (to help pay for our quiet afternoons in the doctor's waiting room.
But the other source is just as important. WRT IHT, we currently have a tax which doesn't work because it is mostly voluntary, and even if it did work it is haphazard and irregular. You only die once, and this fact is tax inefficient. A proper wealth/property/assets/land tax, more regular and at much much lower level than 40% is the answer
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Adam is an important (the first) prophet in Islam, so it's a consistent way to integrate.
Thatcher had the Falklands. Yes her polling was rising a tad before the war - but she had the Falklands
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
Thatcher also had a split opposition, something Starmer has.
It won't be split in 2028. Farage will do a pact with the Tories, quite possibly with the Tories as junior partner
You still don't get how our electoral system works. Reform can be ahead of the Tories in the polls and the Tories will still win far more seats. Only when Reform gets a very, very big lead will they dominate and then it becomes a landslide. It was the same issue with the Liberals decades ago. With our system being in the lead does not win you the election unless you are Tory/Lab because of the demographics.
Potentially, but FPTP is breaking as the party loyalties fray. I think it’s entirely possible if (if doing a lot of heavy lifting here) LAB, REF and CON do go into the next GE on similar vote shares you could have a weird geographic split whereby the Tories make back some ground in the shires, midlands towns and south west but REF dominate in the red wall and the East.
I wonder if my grandparents thought similarly in the 20's? Especially as the franchise was shortly to be extended so that women between 21 and 30 could vote!
Yes, they did. There was a Private Member's Bill in April 1921 to introduce STV, defeated 211 to 112. The Liberals attempted to introduce AV in 1923, defeated 208 to 178. Another PMB came May 1924 for STV, defeated 240 to 146. The Labour (minority) government with Liberal support then introduced a Representation of the People Bill in January 1931 that included switching to AV. The bill passed its second reading in the Commons and the committee stage. The Lords tried to introduce an amendment to have STV for some constituencies, but that got nowhere. There was then a successful amendment limiting AV to only some constituencies. But the Labour government fell and the bill lost.
Thanks; on that basis one set of my grandparents could have been in favour (Lab/Libs, probably) and the other (Tories) not.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
The Baby Name Data is available for download from the ONS website, and it's absolutely fascinating.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Adam is an important (the first) prophet in Islam, so it's a consistent way to integrate.
Adam was the first messenger, but not a prophet. Noah (2nd most popular UK boy's name) was the first prophet.
I do not understand what the difference between a messenger and a prophet is.
In the Christian tradition messengers are usually non human angelic characters, and prophets are human truth (usually counter intuitive or less popular truth) proclaimers, sometimes with second sight.
Comments
and
VOTE FARMER
One of the most striking themes in Keir Starmer’s speech today — his frustration with Whitehall
For weeks I’ve been asking Labour people what they make of their time in government and one sentiment comes up again and again:
“Dominic Cummings was right”
This is from the ONS Blog:
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
CON: 26% (-1)
REF: 24% (+2)
LAB: 23% (-2)
LDEM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 9% (-)
via
@FindoutnowUK
, 04 Dec
She also had a much more solid victory behind her as a base - in 1979 she got 43.9% of the vote. She was a big winner in 1979. People
forget - whereas the ludicrous Starmer got 33%
Finally, Thatcher had a clear if unpopular plan and a talented team of ministers
I rest my case
When was labour last at 23% ?
My only question is wtf are Find Out Now???
Why are Labour in 3rd place... Ask Find Out Now.?
Relevance... NONE
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=26&LAB=23&LIB=11&Reform=24&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
So neither Tories nor Reform nor Lab and LDs combined would have a majority.
Tories + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP would be on 321 and Labour + LDs + Greens + SNP + Plaid + Independents + Alliance + SF + SDLP if took seats + Independents would be on 322 so both still short.
Though Starmer could scrape home as PM if SF took seats, otherwise Badenoch would likely lead a minority Tory government with Reform and DUP confidence and supply
Maybe you need to review your technique
Given the ULF transmitters were used to send submarine orders, the question must be, is the order to sink the Belgrano lurking in some Black Sabbath album?
Upsetting pensioners their children and grandchildren was not the best first action she took and is likely to be her legacy much as the poll tax was
Suddenly it's the best thing since the Chorleywood Process and bread slicers were invented?
The questions after Starmer's lacklustre speech today suggest Farage is running the agenda. Incredulity from the not very bright Beth Rigby that Starmer had no immigration number. Like immigration numbers have been a reliable indicator of immigration control. Nigel is pulling the strings.
High Speed RailCoronovirus Rapid Transmission SystemLab/Con is 49%
SPLORG is 51%.
Lab/Con 52 is the lowest I have noticed before.
Crossover. I don't think this will last long or be seen again soon, but a long era of Lab/Con dominance (which was well over 80% in 2017) is unstable.
You might disagree with his solutions (they certainly took an “everything will be fine if we just hand governance to a bunch of tech nerds, nothing can ever go wrong with this plan” approach to problem solving that felt very naive to me.) but I this his analysis was pretty sound.
Given they have rubbish polling numbers anyway, Labour had a golden chance to fix all this at the budget. So did the Conservatives in the spring, in the face of inevitable defeat. Cowardice everywhere.
It’s taken SKS 5 months.
Although this has absolutely no bearing on where people will be in 4 years time, I will just enjoy a slight feeling of mirth that Labour find themselves in such a predicament. Much of the last 5 months has been a complete unforced error; and while I agree with those who say that they need to be given time, my initial feelings of disappointment with them have led me to crack a little smile at this poll.
Although after Trump has handed over the EU to Russia we'll be defending the White Cliffs of Dover rather than retaking Port Stanley.
He gave the impression that he was going to make Whitehall more productive by sheer force of will, which I think we all know is destined to fail.
https://x.com/KareemRifai/status/1864671406853665118
The other thing is polls before election overstated Lab lead. Even if no one had changed their minds, they would still be down 5%+.
The key is that the log at Northwood, and the recollections of those involved match.
Hint: Goeben and Troubridge.
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-madrid-built-its-metro-cheaply/
Worth reading the whole thing - lots of potential lessons for us.
However, I guess you're used to regretting your vote.
Do not post defamatory allegations against BPC registered pollsters.
I'd be interested in the reaction of someone like @Casino_Royale who works in the industry.
So, "Muhammad" is the number one boys Muslim name, with 3,722 babies born with it. And you might think that the peak incidence, given that it has become the most popular boys name.
But actually it's not. "Muhammad" was actually more popular back in 2016 when 3,908 babies got that name.
The alternative spelling - "Muhammed" - goes on a really weird rollercoaster of popularity: only 354 babies were named it, against over 500 in every year between 2008 and 2016.
There are also some interesting - and probably biracial names - that have picked up popularity, such as "Muhammad-Adam".
Guess what? It came up with Farage having a ginormous majority.
But I'd vote for him.
The spoilt brats need to get over it.
Badenoch 3.55
Farage 4.4
Johnson 20
Rayner 21
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-next-prime-minister/prime-minister-after-keir-starmer-betting-1.230434795
Conservatives: 26% (-1)
Reform UK: 24% (+2)
Labour: 23% (-2)
LD 11% (-1)
Green 9% (-1)
No extra housing being built
Also, the US are about to put a bunch of outsiders into a serious project to cut the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which if it works will be transformative for that country and attract investment that would otherwise end up elsewhere. Such as the UK.
I recall the 83 election fairly well - it was the first I voted in. It seems absurd to me to argue it wasn't significant.
Thatcher would likely have lost against a united Labour Party under a moderate, of course.
I do not understand what the difference between a messenger and a prophet is.
But the other source is just as important. WRT IHT, we currently have a tax which doesn't work because it is mostly voluntary, and even if it did work it is haphazard and irregular. You only die once, and this fact is tax inefficient. A proper wealth/property/assets/land tax, more regular and at much much lower level than 40% is the answer