Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Anabob referring to her as Bad-Enoch, geddit, in the past was far pithier and more droll.
Baxter (unless I've missed someone, surprised it isn't already posted)
Lab 289 Con 153 LD 71 Ref 86 Oth 14 Green 4 Nats 14 + 4
A perfect result. A Lib Lab coalition with a Lib Dem demand for Rejoin. Angie leader with Ed her deputy. It would be like '97 all over again
Is nobody considering a Labour government supported by Reform? Reform voters’ preferred policies are closer to those of Starmer’s Labour than those of the Conservatives, apart from immigration. It depends whether Farage is willing to sacrifice Singapore on Thames for the opportunity of power, especially if it undermines the Conservatives.
In addition, SLAB would have no qualms about forming an alliance with Reform after the 2026 Holyrood election, if it excluded the SNP from power. Their difficulty would be getting the Lib Dems to join them. On current support, Reform would gain more MSPs than either the Lib Dems and the Greens. The Scottish and Welsh parliament elections would be an easier target than local councils, because they wouldn’t need to find as many candidates, or build up a local presence.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
Using ketchup rather than brown sauce in a bacon sandwich is, frankly, worse than Kemi's comments.
The important thing is the quality of bacon. Almost all supermarket bacon is awful (though Co-op is quite good). You don't actually need sauce, you just need good bacon. There is no better argument for the preservation of the high street than the local butcher, and no better argument for the local butcher than the bacon sandwich.
My dog is prone to pancreatitis and is on a strict low-fat diet as a result. This makes it difficult to give her treats because they are mostly high fat. The solution is to cook her high quality chicken, which is low enough in fat. The local butcher supplies this. Supermarket chicken is loaded with fat, which would probably be fatal for the pooch, and pretty unhealthy for the humans too.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
Baxter (unless I've missed someone, surprised it isn't already posted)
Lab 289 Con 153 LD 71 Ref 86 Oth 14 Green 4 Nats 14 + 4
A perfect result. A Lib Lab coalition with a Lib Dem demand for Rejoin. Angie leader with Ed her deputy. It would be like '97 all over again
Is nobody considering a Labour government supported by Reform? Reform voters’ preferred policies are closer to those of Starmer’s Labour than those of the Conservatives, apart from immigration. It depends whether Farage is willing to sacrifice Singapore on Thames for the opportunity of power, especially if it undermines the Conservatives.
In addition, SLAB would have no qualms about forming an alliance with Reform after the 2026 Holyrood election, if it excluded the SNP from power. Their difficulty would be getting the Lib Dems to join them. On current support, Reform would gain more MSPs than either the Lib Dems and the Greens. The Scottish and Welsh parliament elections would be an easier target than local councils, because they wouldn’t need to find as many candidates, or build up a local presence.
Agreed on the latter - List MSPs would be their way in. Like the Tories, come to think of it, in many areas.
I have to admit, this is a very bold defence of seeking to launch a self coup and impose martial law - you made me do it/it never happened! In his address, his first since his apology over the weekend, Yoon denied that his martial law order was an act of insurrection, claiming that his political rivals were creating "false incitement" to bring him down. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp8p875g8o
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Kemi is facing a ban from PB.com:
The Tory leader later attacked Starmer for saying that he might watch Love Actually over Christmas, adding that she prefers watching Die Hard over the festive period.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
No one's favourite sandwich is "bacon and ketchup". A favourite sandwich is ham and cheese or BLT or tuna mayonnaise.
A bacon sarnie is in a different category. The category of bacon roll. And it's not ketchup in that context, it's red sauce.
Fail all round for Sir Ed.
We need a sarnie eating competition between Ed D and Ed M.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
Using ketchup rather than brown sauce in a bacon sandwich is, frankly, worse than Kemi's comments.
The important thing is the quality of bacon. Almost all supermarket bacon is awful (though Co-op is quite good). You don't actually need sauce, you just need good bacon. There is no better argument for the preservation of the high street than the local butcher, and no better argument for the local butcher than the bacon sandwich.
My dog is prone to pancreatitis and is on a strict low-fat diet as a result. This makes it difficult to give her treats because they are mostly high fat. The solution is to cook her high quality chicken, which is low enough in fat. The local butcher supplies this. Supermarket chicken is loaded with fat, which would probably be fatal for the pooch, and pretty unhealthy for the humans too.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
(I eat a lot of meat.)
Yes. My tenant who used to have nine dogs would cook ovenfuls of chicken for them.
I'm not sure where it came from, but it would be from somewhere wholesale. And she had at least two dedicated dog food freezers, and two dedicated sheds for dog-things.
Logic says get into the supply chain of Chinese or other restaurants.
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
If there was a rerun, would it be him? Cleverley had a chance I think
Presumably if an opening emerged the idea is they would be replaced by their polar opposite, and for some reason Jenrick was chosen as the Faragist candidate even if that made little sense, so he would win out over 'continuity' Cleverly.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
I will always think of @ydoethur as a good groaner from now on.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
Using ketchup rather than brown sauce in a bacon sandwich is, frankly, worse than Kemi's comments.
The important thing is the quality of bacon. Almost all supermarket bacon is awful (though Co-op is quite good). You don't actually need sauce, you just need good bacon. There is no better argument for the preservation of the high street than the local butcher, and no better argument for the local butcher than the bacon sandwich.
My dog is prone to pancreatitis and is on a strict low-fat diet as a result. This makes it difficult to give her treats because they are mostly high fat. The solution is to cook her high quality chicken, which is low enough in fat. The local butcher supplies this. Supermarket chicken is loaded with fat, which would probably be fatal for the pooch, and pretty unhealthy for the humans too.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
(I eat a lot of meat.)
One of our dogs is prone to pancreatitis as well. We give her pre-cooked chicken cubes from Farm Foods. Very good vfm and fat content is very low.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
The SDP weren’t really interested in local government, either. History rhyming, again.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Kemi is facing a ban from PB.com:
The Tory leader later attacked Starmer for saying that he might watch Love Actually over Christmas, adding that she prefers watching Die Hard over the festive period.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
Then it's a pun.....every advertiser wants one. Seen outside a motorway service station...(Apologies to Nestle)
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Kemi is facing a ban from PB.com:
The Tory leader later attacked Starmer for saying that he might watch Love Actually over Christmas, adding that she prefers watching Die Hard over the festive period.
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
And the decline will then be even greater.
I don’t think so - he would at least do the very important job of flushing CCHQ of the toxic ancien regime that Kemi has maintained.
Responding to William's point earlier, there's still a space for the Tory Party as Labour becomes more unpopular - there are some people, Clarkson types, who won't ever vote Reform. However I don’t think Jeremy Hunt is the answer. Kemi's actual positioning isn't bad, it makes sense. But her execution, conviction, and the people she has surrounded herself with are seriously lacking.
And sadly she doesn't really have anyone looking out for her; she was installed by the Goveites, who even if Nadine's theories are 99. 9% false, are a predatory bunch. If she steps out of their favoured lines or tries to sack any of their people, the briefings will start.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
A rare misstep from Davey. He's triangulating. That's not the way these days.
Only cucumber sandwiches should be triangulated. Proper bacon sandwiches should be halved
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
If there was a rerun, would it be him? Cleverley had a chance I think
How will he win over voters from Reform? Labour are already down to a mere 26% and the LDs 11% so not much room to squeeze either.
In any case on this poll Kemi would have overturned a Labour majority of 174 to get a hung parliament in just a single parliament while still keeping the Tories second and gaining over 30 seats. Reform meanwhile would take 3rd and overtake the LDs so we would not be far off a Tory and Reform government, assuming a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs for a few years staggered on until final defeat
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
Using ketchup rather than brown sauce in a bacon sandwich is, frankly, worse than Kemi's comments.
The important thing is the quality of bacon. Almost all supermarket bacon is awful (though Co-op is quite good). You don't actually need sauce, you just need good bacon. There is no better argument for the preservation of the high street than the local butcher, and no better argument for the local butcher than the bacon sandwich.
My dog is prone to pancreatitis and is on a strict low-fat diet as a result. This makes it difficult to give her treats because they are mostly high fat. The solution is to cook her high quality chicken, which is low enough in fat. The local butcher supplies this. Supermarket chicken is loaded with fat, which would probably be fatal for the pooch, and pretty unhealthy for the humans too.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
(I eat a lot of meat.)
One of our dogs is prone to pancreatitis as well. We give her pre-cooked chicken cubes from Farm Foods. Very good vfm and fat content is very low.
Thanks for the hint. That might be quicker and easier, or at least an alternative.
Since when has that been news? Even I have reservations about sending NATO supplied missiles into Russia rather than just using them to defend Ukraine in Ukraine itself.
Beyond January Trump will cut US aid and it will be up to other NATO nations, especially the UK, France, Poland and maybe a Merz led Germany to step up military aid to Ukraine instead
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
First accusations of Normality for Norfolk, and now this ... it's a hard life being a Scot on PB.
I would be right in thinking that Badenoch woud have been part of the Inverness, Nairn, and Lochaber constituency that gave us the greatest general election result in history?
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Kemi is facing a ban from PB.com:
The Tory leader later attacked Starmer for saying that he might watch Love Actually over Christmas, adding that she prefers watching Die Hard over the festive period.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Kemi is facing a ban from PB.com:
The Tory leader later attacked Starmer for saying that he might watch Love Actually over Christmas, adding that she prefers watching Die Hard over the festive period.
Love Actually must be one of the worst films ever made. Christmas or not.
I re-watched Apollo 13 the other day. Made in 1995 and still a great film despite knowing how it ended. Jim Lovell is still alive btw.
I think you need to take the rose tinted glasses off. Love Actually is nowhere near that good.
Not as bad as the Christmas movies on Channel 5. Mrs. F has a nasty habit of watching them 😞
Edit: should I be celebrating my 5,000th post with a malt whisky?
Mrs Taz is the same. We watched one earlier this week, maybe last week. The Holiday. Not good. Mind you not as bad as Nativity 3 which we watched together.
A spokesman for the Liberal Democrat leader says: "Ed does not think lunch is for wimps, he does think sandwiches are a real food and his favourite sandwich would be bacon with ketchup."
More as we get it.
Using ketchup rather than brown sauce in a bacon sandwich is, frankly, worse than Kemi's comments.
The important thing is the quality of bacon. Almost all supermarket bacon is awful (though Co-op is quite good). You don't actually need sauce, you just need good bacon. There is no better argument for the preservation of the high street than the local butcher, and no better argument for the local butcher than the bacon sandwich.
My dog is prone to pancreatitis and is on a strict low-fat diet as a result. This makes it difficult to give her treats because they are mostly high fat. The solution is to cook her high quality chicken, which is low enough in fat. The local butcher supplies this. Supermarket chicken is loaded with fat, which would probably be fatal for the pooch, and pretty unhealthy for the humans too.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
(I eat a lot of meat.)
One of our dogs is prone to pancreatitis as well. We give her pre-cooked chicken cubes from Farm Foods. Very good vfm and fat content is very low.
Thanks for the hint. That might be quicker and easier, or at least an alternative.
The equivalent for cats is tuna flaks from Aldi. Unless they have shot up in price since our cat popped its clogs a few years ago.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
Since when has that been news? Even I have reservations about sending NATO supplied missiles into Russia rather than just using them to defend Ukraine in Ukraine itself.
Beyond January Trump will cut US aid and it will be up to other NATO nations, especially the UK, France, Poland and maybe a Merz led Germany to step up military aid to Ukraine instead
Biden, Macron and Starmer let Ukraine fire into Russia and whilst it was expected that Trump would stop it, this is the first time I have heard him say it publicly
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
And the decline will then be even greater.
I don’t think so - he would at least do the very important job of flushing CCHQ of the toxic ancien regime that Kemi has maintained.
Responding to William's point earlier, there's still a space for the Tory Party as Labour becomes more unpopular - there are some people, Clarkson types, who won't ever vote Reform. However I don’t think Jeremy Hunt is the answer. Kemi's actual positioning isn't bad, it makes sense. But her execution, conviction, and the people she has surrounded herself with are seriously lacking.
And sadly she doesn't really have anyone looking out for her; she was installed by the Goveites, who even if Nadine's theories are 99. 9% false, are a predatory bunch. If she steps out of their favoured lines or tries to sack any of their people, the briefings will start.
Jenrick is just the Reform gorilla in a suit. Plus he has the personal appeal of a salted slug. The idea he can turn round the Tory party is laughable.
Who could have predicted that migration at nearly a million a year might lead to Reform on 25% in the polls compared to 15% at the GE.
The high immigration figures recently released have not helped the conservatives, unsurprisingly
Though they finally fell on a net basis under Rishi. On today's poll it seems if the voters get rid of Labour (who would lose their majority on the poll) they will only put the Tories back in without a majority so they need Reform support to harden up their right flank and in particular be much harder on cutting immigration.
Kudos to the other @MaxPB for prompting an honest discussion last night about the healthcare CEO killed in USA.
I don't agree with his assessment that he wasn't sorry it happened, although I have to fight quite hard against an instinctive agreement.
Mainly, though, it reaffirms for me what a valuable place this site is for discussions of politics. The fact that Max can defend a position that essentially advocates murder as a response to societal failure is free speech at its best imo, and is a credit to him, this site and the state of free speech in UK despite the naysayers.
Thanks, and while agree that PB is one of the few places where we can have a robust discussion and disagree with each other I don't think it reflects more widely in UK society. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions where a poster on PB has erred on the side of a door knock from the police to get a non-crime hate incident report written up on them. It's just that everyone here is grown up enough not to make reports and @rcs1000 is forgiving enough to let it all slide.
Free speech in the UK is fundamentally in danger and I think we need a first amendment style of law to protect it now which overrides any and all other restrictions that have been placed on free speech other than incitement to violence or panic. There should be no right for someone's offence to override my freedom of expression.
If it were an all or nothing thing I'd agree.
In my view, though, free speech is not absolute which in turn makes it much harder to protect. For example I think the discussion on Thompson's killing was excellent, but had someone gone further and posted advocating for the killing of another specific CEO I think that would go too far.
I'm nervous of the stance that it needs to override all other considerations. We constantly need to draw and negotiate boundaries on this stuff, and laws are poor at doing that. It does need continual vigilance, though.
Who could have predicted that migration at nearly a million a year might lead to Reform on 25% in the polls compared to 15% at the GE.
The high immigration figures recently released have not helped the conservatives, unsurprisingly
It is just impossible to take seriously the party that simultaneously had policies of having both more and fewer migrants.
Labour risk ending up the same way. Lots of nicely visaed migrants entering, and Rayner denying that this is linked with housing problems might just be the start of the new Labour doublethink. Thats's before you start on the boats. They'll be 'going after the gangs' next.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
First accusations of Normality for Norfolk, and now this ... it's a hard life being a Scot on PB.
I would be right in thinking that Badenoch woud have been part of the Inverness, Nairn, and Lochaber constituency that gave us the greatest general election result in history?
AS we used to say when playing 'Risk'. 'Win by a little, lose by a lot.'
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
It's not a pun. It's a corruption of her "funny" name for the purposes of ridicule.
I appreciate that PB is no stranger to puns but this is slightly different in the context of a second generation immigrant with a non-native name.
First accusations of Normality for Norfolk, and now this ... it's a hard life being a Scot on PB.
I would be right in thinking that Badenoch woud have been part of the Inverness, Nairn, and Lochaber constituency that gave us the greatest general election result in history?
Yep, I'd have thought so. At least on the modern-ish Badenoch district boundaries.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
Kudos to the other @MaxPB for prompting an honest discussion last night about the healthcare CEO killed in USA.
I don't agree with his assessment that he wasn't sorry it happened, although I have to fight quite hard against an instinctive agreement.
Mainly, though, it reaffirms for me what a valuable place this site is for discussions of politics. The fact that Max can defend a position that essentially advocates murder as a response to societal failure is free speech at its best imo, and is a credit to him, this site and the state of free speech in UK despite the naysayers.
Thanks, and while agree that PB is one of the few places where we can have a robust discussion and disagree with each other I don't think it reflects more widely in UK society. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions where a poster on PB has erred on the side of a door knock from the police to get a non-crime hate incident report written up on them. It's just that everyone here is grown up enough not to make reports and @rcs1000 is forgiving enough to let it all slide.
Free speech in the UK is fundamentally in danger and I think we need a first amendment style of law to protect it now which overrides any and all other restrictions that have been placed on free speech other than incitement to violence or panic. There should be no right for someone's offence to override my freedom of expression.
If it were an all or nothing thing I'd agree.
In my view, though, free speech is not absolute which in turn makes it much harder to protect. For example I think the discussion on Thompson's killing was excellent, but had someone gone further and posted advocating for the killing of another specific CEO I think that would go too far.
I'm nervous of the stance that it needs to override all other considerations. We constantly need to draw and negotiate boundaries on this stuff, and laws are poor at doing that. It does need continual vigilance, though.
Of course free speech is not absolute. The words "Fred, just get my knife, nip down the road and murder Mr X please" are in the right (and obvious) context, a crime.
Contract killings will be agreed in verbal forms. Every single word uttered in the arrangement is a crime. The party asking for the killing takes not a single non verbal step towards its commission but is guilty of murder.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
When I was teaching in a private school in Oxfordshire we were told by the county social services that they weren't interested in any allegations for a child in a private school. It seems that councils only have powers if the children are in a state school.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
When I was teaching in a private school in Oxfordshire we were told by the county social services that they weren't interested in any allegations for a child in a private school. It seems that councils only have powers if the children are in a state school.
Readin the sharif time line doesn't seem they are that interested in allegations for state school pupils either
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
So you think they are going to be similar to Labour and the Conservatives?
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Just reflect on it for 30 seconds.
Anarchy in the UK
On today's poll Reform would win just under 90 MPs and replace the LDs as the third party.
So they will need to ensure they are improving their vetting for their top tier candidates for Parliament
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
They don't even have a list of them so how they can keep them safe?
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
They don't even have a list of them so how they can keep them safe?
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
Yes. The huge growth in home schooling in recent years is a real concern. In reality, there is virtually no oversight of whether a) the kids are actually being schooled, or b) whether the kids are safe.
It's far too easy for parents just to announce that they're going to stop their kids going to school and have them at home instead.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Just reflect on it for 30 seconds.
Anarchy in the UK
On today's poll Reform would win just under 90 MPs and replace the LDs as the third party.
So they will need to ensure they are improving their vetting for their top tier candidates for Parliament
Omg yes. If they don't they'll end up with lots of thick XL bully owners with broken screens on their mobile phones.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
They don't even have a list of them so how they can keep them safe?
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
The resourcing is the true crime in respect of this in my view. Watching from fairly close to the care system, obviously dangerous decisions are made because of inadequate resources. It is common for any other than the highest risk families to be left alone without support or oversight for years at a time.
Sara Sharif's story is an utterly unsurprising consequence of this.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
They don't even have a list of them so how they can keep them safe?
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
The resourcing is the true crime in respect of this in my view. Watching from fairly close to the care system, obviously dangerous decisions are made because of inadequate resources. It is common for any other than the highest risk families to be left alone without support or oversight for years at a time.
Sara Sharif's story is an utterly unsurprising consequence of this.
COVID put an enormous strain on the police, with constant home visits required for vulnerable kids who would normally be checked on at school. My partner is getting a lot of training on this as well as a GP trainee.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
The vast majority of home schoolers are decent parents, does not mean social services and the police cannot keep a tab on parents if issues arise
They don't even have a list of them so how they can keep them safe?
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
The resourcing is the true crime in respect of this in my view. Watching from fairly close to the care system, obviously dangerous decisions are made because of inadequate resources. It is common for any other than the highest risk families to be left alone without support or oversight for years at a time.
Sara Sharif's story is an utterly unsurprising consequence of this.
COVID put an enormous strain on the police, with constant home visits required for vulnerable kids who would normally be checked on at school. My partner is getting a lot of training on this as well as a GP trainee.
One of the many reasons why schools should be the very last places to lock down in any future pandemic.
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
And the decline will then be even greater.
I don’t think so - he would at least do the very important job of flushing CCHQ of the toxic ancien regime that Kemi has maintained.
Responding to William's point earlier, there's still a space for the Tory Party as Labour becomes more unpopular - there are some people, Clarkson types, who won't ever vote Reform. However I don’t think Jeremy Hunt is the answer. Kemi's actual positioning isn't bad, it makes sense. But her execution, conviction, and the people she has surrounded herself with are seriously lacking.
And sadly she doesn't really have anyone looking out for her; she was installed by the Goveites, who even if Nadine's theories are 99. 9% false, are a predatory bunch. If she steps out of their favoured lines or tries to sack any of their people, the briefings will start.
Jenrick is just the Reform gorilla in a suit. Plus he has the personal appeal of a salted slug. The idea he can turn round the Tory party is laughable.
Meh. I think people are moving beyond 'optics'. Being telegenic, having a great back story, being of an ethnic background that means you can't be condemned as racist - these are qualities for good times. What voters want to know in these times is what you're going to do. What are you proposing and how likely is it you'll deliver? We have no idea what Kemi is proposing, let alone having any confidence in her delivering anything. Hardly surprising she's flailing.
Reform aren't gorillas. I think you're seeing things through the lens of the past.
Oh that's very funny. Badenough. It's a play on her name, which is Badenoch. So Badenough. See how that works? Hysterical. She has probably never had anyone make fun of her name in such an incisive and droll way before. Keep at it.
Puns don't have to be funny. A good groaner usually works better
I will always think of @ydoethur as a good groaner from now on.
@Fairliered I'm hurt. I thought we agreed to keep that private to us.
Given that the main parties have got the memo that all leaders must have four-letter names beginning with K and including the letters E and I, I assume there is a Keri waiting in the wings for the Liberals?
Kemi’s name begins with O.
Olukemi.
Olu is iirc a standard Nigerian prefix that is omitted in use, or at least it has been by the people I've worked with.
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Just reflect on it for 30 seconds.
Anarchy in the UK
On today's poll Reform would win just under 90 MPs and replace the LDs as the third party.
So they will need to ensure they are improving their vetting for their top tier candidates for Parliament
Can Reform continue to increase in support in the polls to 30% and beyond? It's difficult to predict. Maybe 25% is their limit.
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
And the decline will then be even greater.
I don’t think so - he would at least do the very important job of flushing CCHQ of the toxic ancien regime that Kemi has maintained.
Responding to William's point earlier, there's still a space for the Tory Party as Labour becomes more unpopular - there are some people, Clarkson types, who won't ever vote Reform. However I don’t think Jeremy Hunt is the answer. Kemi's actual positioning isn't bad, it makes sense. But her execution, conviction, and the people she has surrounded herself with are seriously lacking.
And sadly she doesn't really have anyone looking out for her; she was installed by the Goveites, who even if Nadine's theories are 99. 9% false, are a predatory bunch. If she steps out of their favoured lines or tries to sack any of their people, the briefings will start.
Jenrick is just the Reform gorilla in a suit. Plus he has the personal appeal of a salted slug. The idea he can turn round the Tory party is laughable.
Meh. I think people are moving beyond 'optics'. Being telegenic, having a great back story, being of an ethnic background that means you can't be condemned as racist - these are qualities for good times. What voters want to know in these times is what you're going to do. What are you proposing and how likely is it you'll deliver? We have no idea what Kemi is proposing, let alone having any confidence in her delivering anything. Hardly surprising she's flailing.
Reform aren't gorillas. I think you're seeing things through the lens of the past.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
When I was teaching in a private school in Oxfordshire we were told by the county social services that they weren't interested in any allegations for a child in a private school. It seems that councils only have powers if the children are in a state school.
This is entirely incorrect. Social services have not only a right but a duty to investigate relevant matters. The issue of schools - whether private or home schooling - is legally irrelevant. Though of course when a child is at school there is an extra layer of supervision.
(It's worth noting that state schools - and private as well I am sure, but I have no knowledge - are a massive safety net system with constant vigilance and interaction. When it works, of course, no-one notices because there is nothing to notice).
Also while the Tories enjoy leads (however small) in some polls, Badenoch is safe right now. The same is true of Starmer. So talk of ditching leaders is exceptionally premature right now.
If we see significant changes in 2025 (eg the Tories slipping back to low 20s, Reform into low 30s), then we’ll see more pressure. But not now.
I think next year's locals will be very interesting: can Reform make inroads, grab some councils, and get some significant on the ground strength? (And can it follow that with decent management of said councils...)
The opportunity has never been greater for them, but at the same time there's risk here: a failure to establish a foothold, and the story of the night being big Conservative gains, and then it's that little bit harder for them.
I'm sure they will win quite a few seats, but I can't see them winning councils. Is there anywhere where they have a ground game across an authority to do that? If there is then ok its possible, but I am not aware of it.
Conservatives are defending good results on this round of elections, but Labour are doing so badly that possibly the Tories will do ok, but a lot of these are County elections and I suspect the Tories are going to lose quite a few seats to the LDs in these.
I expect the Tories to lose Surrey for only the 2nd time in the history of Surrey CC. I think there is a chance of the LDs taking control (although a much longer chance than the Tories losing it). If they do it will be the first time.
Reform are really not that interested in local government and rightly eschew the 'bandwagon effect', both because it's not a strategy they could deliver even if they were interested in it, but more importantly, it's a bad strategy anyway for a party which wants to be the opposition to mainstream politics.
To govern is to choose.
And to choose not to govern... well, it might work, because it avoids them being tarred with the the brush of when things don't work. But it also means they lack an army of on the ground volunteers. It also complicates their job of concentrating their support.
It took the LibDems/Alliance until the 1990s to take local government seriously. And it was only when they did, that they made their big breakthrough.
That said: Reform's vote ceiling is clearly higher. They could - I'm sure - get in the 30s. The danger is that they end up in the 30s everywhere, while the Lib/Lab/Con have less even support, and therefore much greater vote efficiency.
But this is where I think the comparison with the Lib Dems is misleading, or has the potential to. The Lib Dems as a part are well-suited to local government (mostly, NIMBYism apart), and so concentrating efforts there makes sense. But Reform is suited to campaigning not on the ground but online and in the media. Yes, that means they will lack dedicated ground-troops with knowledge of how to win individual seats but they're playing a bigger game than that.
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
A thing about Reform - because of this point you make here - is they could win a ton of seats with many of the individuals sent to parliament being wholly unfit to be MPs.
This is the key point.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Just reflect on it for 30 seconds.
Anarchy in the UK
On today's poll Reform would win just under 90 MPs and replace the LDs as the third party.
So they will need to ensure they are improving their vetting for their top tier candidates for Parliament
Can Reform continue to increase in support in the polls to 30% and beyond? It's difficult to predict. Maybe 25% is their limit.
Of course they can. Will they is perhaps hard to predict but can they, sure.
Removed from school after teachers reported abuse. It's happened to me. That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to. High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
1) Children should not be expected to share a house with an XL Bully 2) ...
It is because migration is so complex and contentious that those who highlight the possible downsides of migration need to have their voices heard. As the case of Steve Fothergill shows, this is not always easy. Back in October, Fothergill, an economics professor at Sheffield Hallam University, sent me a paper on the impact of migration on the labour markets of the old industrial heartlands of England and Wales.
Fothergill has spent most of his career studying what has happened to those parts of the UK at the sharp end of the deindustrialisation of the 1980s. It would be hard to think of an economist who knows more about what is really going on in what were once thriving pit villages than he does. The paper looked at what had happened to employment in the old industrial communities between 2011 and 2021 and found that on average 40% of the new jobs had gone to non-UK citizens.
Fothergill provided some suggestions as to why employers might prefer to employ non-UK workers and said the fact that only 60% of the net new jobs were going to locally born people was not a great return on the regeneration efforts of recent years. Which it clearly isn’t. My view was that the research was a serious piece of work and interesting enough to be the subject of a column, yet within days of the piece appearing, Fothergill was told his part-time contract was being terminated. He sees the decision as an attempt to gag him and says the university was less interested in objective research than in “peddling acceptable messages”. The university says the decision was taken to help ease financial pressures. “Sheffield Hallam University takes its responsibility to protect and promote both free speech and academic freedom seriously. At no point was there any attempt to suppress the research project or its findings,” it said in a statement.
Yet Fothergill has been at the university since it was founded in 1992 and his work has brought in millions of pounds for the institution over more than three decades. His report was run past some eminent experts in his field. If the university didn’t want to hear this, then that would be both wrong and plain daft. Academia is absolutely the right place to have a measured debate about the pros and cons of migration. That debate needs to start with a basic premise: not everyone worried about the level of migration is a bigot.
Comments
Which I find really weird. Intuitively, it feels like it should be the same everywhere.
Lettuce
Cucumber
Avicado
Parsley
A little mint sauce topping
In addition, SLAB would have no qualms about forming an alliance with Reform after the 2026 Holyrood election, if it excluded the SNP from power. Their difficulty would be getting the Lib Dems to join them. On current support, Reform would gain more MSPs than either the Lib Dems and the Greens. The Scottish and Welsh parliament elections would be an easier target than local councils, because they wouldn’t need to find as many candidates, or build up a local presence.
Since I discovered this I have always patronised the local butcher for all my meat.
(I eat a lot of meat.)
Morgan McSweeney is also beginning to tighten and focus Labour Comms.
Immediate action to highlight any pupil suddenly choosing "home schooling" in case of hiding abuse.
In his address, his first since his apology over the weekend, Yoon denied that his martial law order was an act of insurrection, claiming that his political rivals were creating "false incitement" to bring him down.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp8p875g8o
Memories of Granny boiling up sheep's head for the dog. Which ate everything except the bone and teeth (fleexe and horn already removed, I assume).
Put it this way: the Lib Dems cannot win more than about 100 seats on their current strategy because there simply aren't that many more to aim at where they're remotely close and where there's the organisation to mount a campaign. By contrast, Reform could easily get 200+ if they get their online targeting sorted, using a national campaign and profile. And as both the Tories in 2019 and Labour in 2024 proved, you don't need a local council base, or even much of a local volunteer force, to take parliamentary seats.
And the mention of steak reminds me of the old Thatcher-at-a-restaurant-with-her-Cabinet joke.
What would Madam like to eat?
Steak. Raw, please.
And the vegetables?
Oh, they'll have the same as me.
I'm not sure where it came from, but it would be from somewhere wholesale. And she had at least two dedicated dog food freezers, and two dedicated sheds for dog-things.
Logic says get into the supply chain of Chinese or other restaurants.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1867063655235301484
Have a Break....
Have a Quick Crap...
Edit: should I be celebrating my 5,000th post with a malt whisky?
The top 20% of UK warehouses have 75 square km of roof space suitable for solar panels.
Even at a 1:1 area comparison, that's similar to 75 sq km of solar farms not being needed. I'd say the density on a roof would be double.
Either way, each sq km of land area is provision for ~3000 houses at normal density, or 225k houses in total for that area of warehouse roofs.
I don't see warehouse roof solar being left to fester for very long unpromoted.
https://www.planninglawblog.com/solar-rooftops-for-commercial-properties-is-the-revolution-coming/
Responding to William's point earlier, there's still a space for the Tory Party as Labour becomes more unpopular - there are some people, Clarkson types, who won't ever vote Reform. However I don’t think Jeremy Hunt is the answer. Kemi's actual positioning isn't bad, it makes sense. But her execution, conviction, and the people she has surrounded herself with are seriously lacking.
And sadly she doesn't really have anyone looking out for her; she was installed by the Goveites, who even if Nadine's theories are 99. 9% false, are a predatory bunch. If she steps out of their favoured lines or tries to sack any of their people, the briefings will start.
You are displaying Leon levels of low IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badenoch
In any case on this poll Kemi would have overturned a Labour majority of 174 to get a hung parliament in just a single parliament while still keeping the Tories second and gaining over 30 seats. Reform meanwhile would take 3rd and overtake the LDs so we would not be far off a Tory and Reform government, assuming a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs for a few years staggered on until final defeat
Beyond January Trump will cut US aid and it will be up to other NATO nations, especially the UK, France, Poland and maybe a Merz led Germany to step up military aid to Ukraine instead
https://youtu.be/xiEeF8fEOt8?si=OLUlIxiwFbTpYOZO
I wonder how bad the result would have been for him?
The funny bit is that Sarah Palin was there for the traditional US "Pardon a Turkey for Thanksgiving" schmaltz.
I hope it wasn't *that* one.
(Trigger warning: incoming hands-on turkey termination in the background.)
https://youtu.be/7HEFmFOlSaQ?t=59
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/11/sara-sharif-death-what-were-the-missed-chances
RIP
https://x.com/classicbritcom/status/1867279072768012544?s=61
https://news.sky.com/story/net-migration-to-the-uk-falls-by-20-to-728-000-over-last-year-13262158#:~:text=Net migration to the UK has fallen by 20% from,the year to June 2024.
In my view, though, free speech is not absolute which in turn makes it much harder to protect. For example I think the discussion on Thompson's killing was excellent, but had someone gone further and posted advocating for the killing of another specific CEO I think that would go too far.
I'm nervous of the stance that it needs to override all other considerations. We constantly need to draw and negotiate boundaries on this stuff, and laws are poor at doing that. It does need continual vigilance, though.
Labour risk ending up the same way. Lots of nicely visaed migrants entering, and Rayner denying that this is linked with housing problems might just be the start of the new Labour doublethink. Thats's before you start on the boats. They'll be 'going after the gangs' next.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-will-die-protecting-this-country-kemi-badenoch-on-where-she-plans-to-take-the-tories/
'Win by a little, lose by a lot.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
It's happened to me.
That's what the "parental rights" mantra ultimately leads to.
High time for children's rights. And a crackdown on "home schooling".
Contract killings will be agreed in verbal forms. Every single word uttered in the arrangement is a crime. The party asking for the killing takes not a single non verbal step towards its commission but is guilty of murder.
I guess it's a very tight definition of warehouse, that ignores warehouse like buildings such as factories and out of town supermarkets.
God forbid a Party whose sole Parliamentary experience is a lazy spiv, 2 multi millionaire businessmen, Lee Anderson and a convicted partner beater.
Just reflect on it for 30 seconds.
Anarchy in the UK
So they will need to ensure they are improving their vetting for their top tier candidates for Parliament
Wow
https://x.com/thelytokous/status/1867128190944374839?s=61
There should be a register and the threshold for stopping home schooling if any safety concerns should be low. And it needs to be resourced properly of course otherwise what the law says isn't going to protect in reality.
And, yes, no solar panels.
I wonder what the area of supermarket car parks is.
It's far too easy for parents just to announce that they're going to stop their kids going to school and have them at home instead.
Sara Sharif's story is an utterly unsurprising consequence of this.
Reform aren't gorillas. I think you're seeing things through the lens of the past.
(It's worth noting that state schools - and private as well I am sure, but I have no knowledge - are a massive safety net system with constant vigilance and interaction. When it works, of course, no-one notices because there is nothing to notice).
2) ...
Fothergill has spent most of his career studying what has happened to those parts of the UK at the sharp end of the deindustrialisation of the 1980s. It would be hard to think of an economist who knows more about what is really going on in what were once thriving pit villages than he does. The paper looked at what had happened to employment in the old industrial communities between 2011 and 2021 and found that on average 40% of the new jobs had gone to non-UK citizens.
Fothergill provided some suggestions as to why employers might prefer to employ non-UK workers and said the fact that only 60% of the net new jobs were going to locally born people was not a great return on the regeneration efforts of recent years. Which it clearly isn’t. My view was that the research was a serious piece of work and interesting enough to be the subject of a column, yet within days of the piece appearing, Fothergill was told his part-time contract was being terminated. He sees the decision as an attempt to gag him and says the university was less interested in objective research than in “peddling acceptable messages”. The university says the decision was taken to help ease financial pressures. “Sheffield Hallam University takes its responsibility to protect and promote both free speech and academic freedom seriously. At no point was there any attempt to suppress the research project or its findings,” it said in a statement.
Yet Fothergill has been at the university since it was founded in 1992 and his work has brought in millions of pounds for the institution over more than three decades. His report was run past some eminent experts in his field. If the university didn’t want to hear this, then that would be both wrong and plain daft. Academia is absolutely the right place to have a measured debate about the pros and cons of migration. That debate needs to start with a basic premise: not everyone worried about the level of migration is a bigot.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/11/migration-figures-britain-economy-keir-starmer