Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
On the subject of Reform. The problem all governments (in essentially all developed countries) have is this:
(1) The number of old people is rising faster than the number of workers (2) The cost of healthcare and pensions to the retirees is therefore rising faster than the economic output of the workers
To add to which
(3) It is retirees who wield electoral power
This toxic combination has completely fucked up Japan and Italy. It's currently fucking up the UK too.
If you don't promise the moon on the stick to retirees, you don't get elected.
If you deliver the moon the stick to retirees, you fuck up your economy even more.
In the UK, we've made this even worse by having a tax and benefits system that discourages people at the lower end of the income spectrum from working, because effective tax rates (including withdrawal of benefits) are close to 100%. This therefore means we've artificially lowered the number of potential workers (and we're actually paying them to stay home).
And oh... it gets worse... it also means that governments have had to import large numbers of people to do low paid jobs in the care sector. Which means that housing - already expensive - has gotten even more expensive. Further fucking the economy.
None of the political parties actually seem to have any interest in dealing with the issues. Kemi (as @HYUFD has pointed out) seems mostly interested in promising to refeather the nests of the retired. SKS, by contrast, has chosen to raise employer's NI contributions, which makes employing the lower skilled even more expensive. Reform have promised to treat the symptoms, but without even acknowledging the causes. And the Liberal Democrats (who actually used to have real thinkers like David Laws) have discovered the route to electoral success is simply opposing everything.
It's not perfectly consistent, but Labour have a theme of helping working people, and by implication not focusing on retirees. They are doing things the grey vote might not like: scrapping WFA, increasing housebuilding, onshore wind/generally facing down nimby...
But the big changes I think we need - changing triple lock, introducing a wealth tax/housing tax/reforming social care - I don't know if they are brave enough to take on.
I actually agree that Labour has done some things - small things - to help. Winter fuel allowance was a bung.
And Labour has talked a good game on housebuilding. But talking a good game is not the same as actually delivering a good game.
They’re slow, certainly, but it’s the one area of policy where they actually appear to be moving in the right direction.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
Not having any Storm Shadows left is bad in terms of the defence of this realm, never mind Ukraine.
We seem to have abandoned any pretensions to having a working national defence in this country. Time was that Ben Wallace told those Russian pranksters pretending to be Zelensky that we couldn't give Ukraine any more Javelins because we wouldn't have enough for our army. But evidently even pretending to defend the country is beyond this lot.
It seems particularly daft to send nearly our entire Navy to the Far East next year, though at least this HMS Prince of Wales is going to have air cover in the South China Sea.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
There is a big difference between them being issues 'of significance' and things that are nice ticky box things that can be put into their manifestos. It is highly likely that these things will make it into the Tory, Lib Dem, Nationalist and Reform manifestos.
Reform, the Nats and quite possibly the Lib Dems, as parties that will run third party seat maximising campaigns. For the Tories its a trap they likely have to avoid given as the 'alternative' government - at least until Reform usurp them, they'll face tough questions about whether restoring these things are the best use of money and how are paying for it.
Given the Tories have near zero chance of getting a majority government anyway next time they need to focus on maximising their vote not looking credible to a few fiscally conservative economists to ensure their majority government
That an extraordinary admission for a party that aspires to be in government.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I would find an excuse not to meet up.
Explain that you are wanting to continue attending, and therefore open to his ministry, but not wanting a one to one.
There is also the risk that you could precipitate a crisis of faith in him, with continuing ramifications. He may well be headed that way already, but doesn't need a push.
Thanks everyone.
With respect to @Dura_Ace's no prisoners approach (which is probably closest to my own instincts) the consensus is with @Foxy and others. I think I'm in a bit too deep and can only disappoint by meeting again.
Speaking as someone who has a different faith and has also raised a child I personally would not have agreed to raising the child in any faith. We instead didn't force him to goto church and made sure to teach him a little about the basics of every faith and discussed as well agnosticism, atheism etc as well.
I think a child will find a pull when they are ready, or not as in my son's case, enforcing church attendance rarely works out as parents wish, Especially when the child gets old enough for "Awww do we have to go, I want to go out with my friends"
@pagan2 I wholeheartedly agree, but am also happy for my wife to make a different decision - it's her faith and she felt she wanted the kids to experience it. In the grand scheme of things I think it does little harm and quite a lot of good for them.
I was merely expressing her intervention at a young age might actually end up pushing them away from her faith
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
There is a big difference between them being issues 'of significance' and things that are nice ticky box things that can be put into their manifestos. It is highly likely that these things will make it into the Tory, Lib Dem, Nationalist and Reform manifestos.
Reform, the Nats and quite possibly the Lib Dems, as parties that will run third party seat maximising campaigns. For the Tories its a trap they likely have to avoid given as the 'alternative' government - at least until Reform usurp them, they'll face tough questions about whether restoring these things are the best use of money and how are paying for it.
Given the Tories have near zero chance of getting a majority government anyway next time they need to focus on maximising their vote not looking credible to a few fiscally conservative economists to ensure their majority government
That an extraordinary admission for a party that aspires to be in government.
But not so extraordinary for one that does not aspire to be in government for several years yet.....
Drove today for the first time since Christmas Eve. I experienced two issues of (mild) road rage by middle-aged men inside an hour. Both related to passing places/passing spots. Another almost did because I beckoned him to pass, with a smile, and he looked at me with sullen hostility rather than gratitude.
Has anyone else experienced this? Did some people have a really bad Christmas, or are they back at work and in a bad mood?
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
It's a great insight.
And goes some way to explaining why some of the least self-aware people are those who become the Religious Zealots and the Hardline Atheists.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
I think it was the Wokesniffer Pursuivant, Casino, who said that the Tories have basically two modes of operation: complacency and panic.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏
All atheists are agnostics. Just like all theists (including me). Whether some subject is knowable depends on the the nature of the subject, not the opinion of the putative knower.
This is one of the trillion interesting insights of Kant's first critique.
That's not true though.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
Having met Hyufd in real life, actually he isn’t bonkers. He is quite remarkably stubborn, although to be fair he isn’t alone in that on here, but that’s not the same thing.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
Why not lie outright and call it "family farm tax" - and assume we're all morons on PB? It's a *reduction in the landowner's allowance*.
I suppose it's a slight improvement on Tractor Tax.
Adopting that term Tractor Tax is basically signing up to HYUFD's attempt to distort the argument. I'm old enough to remember when the Tories used to get very upset when the Community Charge was called the Poll Tax. And that was actually pretty accurate compared to Tractor Tax.
The PMs who got the most done in the last 100 years ie Attlee and Thatcher were also very stubborn at times, nobody got their agenda through without some degree of stubbornness
Is Johnson in your top three having stubbornly got Brexit done?
Attlee made a bit of a hash of India's partition and what were previously labelled successes have unravelled over the last fourteen and a half years. You can scratch that loser from your list.
On Brexit alone Boris could be in top 3 yes of postwar PMs who delivered but obviously he did not make the major economic changes Attlee did in expanding the size of the state and Thatcher did in cutting the size of the state and union power.
You could also make a case for Wilson in expanding social liberalism with abortion and homosexuality legalised under his premiership and for Blair in terms of constitutional change ie devolution and removing most hereditary peers and the FOI and DPA Acts being 3rd but again neither challenges Attlee or Thatcher in top 2. The near god like status for the NHS alone Attlee set up still today is evidence of the change he made.
If including all PMs of the last 100 years ie pre WW2 too then Churchill would round out the top 3 but only because of his WW2 leadership and he also rarely gave in there
I never understand the adulation Boris gets heaped on him over Brexit. It was inevitable the moment Theresa signed away our birthrights with Article 50. As for 'the oven-ready deal', does anyone still think that was remotely optimal? Brexit did wonders for Boris's career; not the other way round.
Yes I'd say Brexit delivered Boris is the better formulation.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
I don't think that's true. Supposedly the Social Democrats in Denmark are the centre-left poster girls and boys for this approach, but in the polling they are about 8pp down on the last general election, and the three coalition parties as a whole are about 17pp down.
Generally speaking incumbent parties are struggling. A tough approach on immigration doesn't change that calculus.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
You might enjoy this long-form interview with Steve Baker in the Irish Times, as posted by another PBer a couple of weeks ago:
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
On the subject of Reform. The problem all governments (in essentially all developed countries) have is this:
(1) The number of old people is rising faster than the number of workers (2) The cost of healthcare and pensions to the retirees is therefore rising faster than the economic output of the workers
To add to which
(3) It is retirees who wield electoral power
This toxic combination has completely fucked up Japan and Italy. It's currently fucking up the UK too.
If you don't promise the moon on the stick to retirees, you don't get elected.
If you deliver the moon the stick to retirees, you fuck up your economy even more.
In the UK, we've made this even worse by having a tax and benefits system that discourages people at the lower end of the income spectrum from working, because effective tax rates (including withdrawal of benefits) are close to 100%. This therefore means we've artificially lowered the number of potential workers (and we're actually paying them to stay home).
And oh... it gets worse... it also means that governments have had to import large numbers of people to do low paid jobs in the care sector. Which means that housing - already expensive - has gotten even more expensive. Further fucking the economy.
None of the political parties actually seem to have any interest in dealing with the issues. Kemi (as @HYUFD has pointed out) seems mostly interested in promising to refeather the nests of the retired. SKS, by contrast, has chosen to raise employer's NI contributions, which makes employing the lower skilled even more expensive. Reform have promised to treat the symptoms, but without even acknowledging the causes. And the Liberal Democrats (who actually used to have real thinkers like David Laws) have discovered the route to electoral success is simply opposing everything.
It's not perfectly consistent, but Labour have a theme of helping working people, and by implication not focusing on retirees. They are doing things the grey vote might not like: scrapping WFA, increasing housebuilding, onshore wind/generally facing down nimby...
But the big changes I think we need - changing triple lock, introducing a wealth tax/housing tax/reforming social care - I don't know if they are brave enough to take on.
It's a slight exaggeration to say that they had one, and only one, chance, with their first budget, and blew it. But only a slight exaggeration.
Yes all that bollox about them doing things, all flim flam and hot air, done nothing so far but rob the poor and dole out big pay rises to their buddies to make the oft repeated black hole real. We will see when the rest of their pals get the begging bowls out and when NI bites and people start getting sacked.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
If the next leadership election resolves down to Cleverly vs. Jenrick, who wins?
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
Quadruple lock - state pension no smaller and no greater than the income tax allowance.
That's quite a good idea, at first sight anyway. Would mean that those of us with private pensions would know we were going to pay tax on them. Which at the moment they don't if their private ones are small; people in that situation pay tax one year, then not as the allowance and pensions change. I'm sure someone will find an objection though.
Not objecting, just noting that the state pension isn't as fixed as it is often assumed to be. Some people don't have the full 40 years and even if we go for the 40-year figure, others have a bit extra added on for arcane reasons. Though none of these seem fatal. Part of th eproblem is really the Government's complete inability to get DWP to work like any other pension provider or employer and deduct tax at source, provide P60s, etc. etc.
I’d get rid of as much of that nonsense as well. Cutting people’s state pension for missing quite tiny contributions seems childish.
Merge NI and income tax. Make the personal allowance fixed - if you want to raise more tax, raise rates.
Get rid of silly cliffs. The simpler the tax, the poorer tax lawyers will get.
No NI should be ringfenced for state pensions and JSA with NI credits scrapped
And what should happen when NI raised is insufficient to cover the cost of pensions?
On the subject of Reform. The problem all governments (in essentially all developed countries) have is this:
(1) The number of old people is rising faster than the number of workers (2) The cost of healthcare and pensions to the retirees is therefore rising faster than the economic output of the workers
To add to which
(3) It is retirees who wield electoral power
This toxic combination has completely fucked up Japan and Italy. It's currently fucking up the UK too.
If you don't promise the moon on the stick to retirees, you don't get elected.
If you deliver the moon the stick to retirees, you fuck up your economy even more.
In the UK, we've made this even worse by having a tax and benefits system that discourages people at the lower end of the income spectrum from working, because effective tax rates (including withdrawal of benefits) are close to 100%. This therefore means we've artificially lowered the number of potential workers (and we're actually paying them to stay home).
And oh... it gets worse... it also means that governments have had to import large numbers of people to do low paid jobs in the care sector. Which means that housing - already expensive - has gotten even more expensive. Further fucking the economy.
None of the political parties actually seem to have any interest in dealing with the issues. Kemi (as @HYUFD has pointed out) seems mostly interested in promising to refeather the nests of the retired. SKS, by contrast, has chosen to raise employer's NI contributions, which makes employing the lower skilled even more expensive. Reform have promised to treat the symptoms, but without even acknowledging the causes. And the Liberal Democrats (who actually used to have real thinkers like David Laws) have discovered the route to electoral success is simply opposing everything.
It's not perfectly consistent, but Labour have a theme of helping working people, and by implication not focusing on retirees. They are doing things the grey vote might not like: scrapping WFA, increasing housebuilding, onshore wind/generally facing down nimby...
But the big changes I think we need - changing triple lock, introducing a wealth tax/housing tax/reforming social care - I don't know if they are brave enough to take on.
I actually agree that Labour has done some things - small things - to help. Winter fuel allowance was a bung.
And Labour has talked a good game on housebuilding. But talking a good game is not the same as actually delivering a good game.
They’re slow, certainly, but it’s the one area of policy where they actually appear to be moving in the right direction.
pull the other one, so far all we have seen is hot air and windbaggery , they have yet to lay a brick.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Another take on the religious quandary. I’m on a train in Spain about to embark on yet another pilgrimage walk. About the seventh time I have done this. You meet people from all walks of life; many religions not just Christians; different cultures and nationalities; all with a desire to understand their spiritual self. It challenges you to listen and understand others and if there’s something there it will come out.
Perhaps Mr & Mrs @maxh could try it and see what changes. No matter what it’s a great way to meet people and discuss different views. Wines are good to.
On the subject of Reform. The problem all governments (in essentially all developed countries) have is this:
(1) The number of old people is rising faster than the number of workers (2) The cost of healthcare and pensions to the retirees is therefore rising faster than the economic output of the workers
To add to which
(3) It is retirees who wield electoral power
This toxic combination has completely fucked up Japan and Italy. It's currently fucking up the UK too.
If you don't promise the moon on the stick to retirees, you don't get elected.
If you deliver the moon the stick to retirees, you fuck up your economy even more.
In the UK, we've made this even worse by having a tax and benefits system that discourages people at the lower end of the income spectrum from working, because effective tax rates (including withdrawal of benefits) are close to 100%. This therefore means we've artificially lowered the number of potential workers (and we're actually paying them to stay home).
And oh... it gets worse... it also means that governments have had to import large numbers of people to do low paid jobs in the care sector. Which means that housing - already expensive - has gotten even more expensive. Further fucking the economy.
None of the political parties actually seem to have any interest in dealing with the issues. Kemi (as @HYUFD has pointed out) seems mostly interested in promising to refeather the nests of the retired. SKS, by contrast, has chosen to raise employer's NI contributions, which makes employing the lower skilled even more expensive. Reform have promised to treat the symptoms, but without even acknowledging the causes. And the Liberal Democrats (who actually used to have real thinkers like David Laws) have discovered the route to electoral success is simply opposing everything.
It's not perfectly consistent, but Labour have a theme of helping working people, and by implication not focusing on retirees. They are doing things the grey vote might not like: scrapping WFA, increasing housebuilding, onshore wind/generally facing down nimby...
But the big changes I think we need - changing triple lock, introducing a wealth tax/housing tax/reforming social care - I don't know if they are brave enough to take on.
It's a slight exaggeration to say that they had one, and only one, chance, with their first budget, and blew it. But only a slight exaggeration.
Yes all that bollox about them doing things, all flim flam and hot air, done nothing so far but rob the poor and dole out big pay rises to their buddies to make the oft repeated black hole real. We will see when the rest of their pals get the begging bowls out and when NI bites and people start getting sacked.
My company already capped pay rises due to the ni and minimum wage increase....people like me got offered 1%.....guess yes another year of pay cuts
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
France is making some efforts to step up production of their version. I think we're still in the process of reviewing (yet again) whatever the hell our defence policy is.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Labour will improve between now and the next election the Tories will need to do the same.
The closest to this stage of a parliament we have is 1992-97 where the exit from the ERM early on caused a lot of problems but ultimately was only a minor thing by the 97 election. It was the constant scandals and the fact that the Tories had been in power for 18 years that good communicator Blair could exploit to crush them.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
The tories are not an alternative....voters are sick and tired over the last 40 years its been tory or labour and are standard of living has diminished.....they can both go fuck themselves because both offer more of the same....here is a clue...if it hasn't worked in the last few decades its not going to work going forward find another approach.
They are like a guy fancying a girl and assuming if they use the same pickup lines over and over which she keeps refusing that sooner or later she will give in and say yes
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
He did more than the minimum and had to fight to get it through at home. Trump is about to show us what a genuinely useless (to Ukraine) American president looks like.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
If the next leadership election resolves down to Cleverly vs. Jenrick, who wins?
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
The problem is that governments in the Western world have no money for the reasons I elucidated below.
It's guns or butter, and the pensioners want butter.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
At the moment Reform and the Tories are dividing the Right and each arguing the other should give way.
There's a real risk that Labour become hated but win a second term on points.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
Cleverly was no better than Badenoch, IMHO. He was invisible and his platform absent.
Jenrick, had a been a good egg, would have been the obvious choice - but he isn't.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
At the moment Reform and the Tories are dividing the Right and each arguing the other should give way.
There's a real risk that Labour become hated but win a second term on points.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Did you not vote Labour? They had a pro-Brexit manifesto.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Did you not vote Labour? They had a pro-Brexit manifesto.
No, indeed that was one of several reasons I didn't vote Labour.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
The eu of the 2016's when we voted leave wasnt the eec we joined and arsehole politicians kept taking us deeper without ever asking us because both sides were pro eu
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
Centre Left parties - other than the Danish Social Democrats - prioritise immigration over and above electoral success.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Did you not vote Labour? They had a pro-Brexit manifesto.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
Well, let's see.
If we ever rejoin the eu I hope to see the rise of a gb republican army fighting it
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
"Thatcherism on a European scale". After what she did for Britain I can see why it appeals.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
Well he obviously meant that. Brexit is a historical event. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Kids needed an airing today. The fog didn't strike me as overly conducive to a hill walk so we went up to the reservoirs at Longdendale Pleasantly atmospheric. But at the top reservoir, there was some blue sky overhead - and it became apparent that the top of the cloud was only about 250m or so. So on the way home we went via Charlesworth and took a detour up the Hayfield road, from where there was a magnificent sunset over the clouds.
The fog looks set to last another 24 hours, but if you have any high land close to you it's well worth getting above it. Looking down on cloud is a delicious experience.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
We are having to release prisoners early because there aren't enough places and schools are literally falling down. That really doesn't suggest the state is doing too much.
Edward VIII and Nazi Germany - Did the King Seek Alliance with Hitler? | AJP Taylor Interview (1962)
On 28 December 1962, ITN’s Tom St John Barry spoke to acclaimed historian AJP Taylor about newly published foreign office documents which were alleged to reveal King Edward VIII's efforts to seek a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Some five years after the publication of the infamous Marburg Files, Taylor gave his view on the significance and reliability of the new evidence of the Duke of Windsor's alleged Nazi sympathies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs35gKEeEKc
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
For some value of "supported".
Obviously. It was higher than nothing and lower than everything. Like most things.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
The Tories didn't want to join the EU for half a century. In the 70s most of them supported joining the Common Market, which was very different from the EU, despite Ted Heath's lies about retaining sovereignty.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
Centre Left parties - other than the Danish Social Democrats - prioritise immigration over and above electoral success.
Which I find fascinating. It seems that the social approval of their peer group is more important to them than political success.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
We are having to release prisoners early because there aren't enough places and schools are literally falling down. That really doesn't suggest the state is doing too much.
That is not the same as suggesting the state should do less
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
Kids needed an airing today. The fog didn't strike me as overly conducive to a hill walk so we went up to the reservoirs at Longdendale Pleasantly atmospheric. But at the top reservoir, there was some blue sky overhead - and it became apparent that the top of the cloud was only about 250m or so. So on the way home we went via Charlesworth and took a detour up the Hayfield road, from where there was a magnificent sunset over the clouds.
The fog looks set to last another 24 hours, but if you have any high land close to you it's well worth getting above it. Looking down on cloud is a delicious experience.
The fog created a very atmospheric NW3. It was kind of olde worldley.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
I'm not especially worried about it at the moment. It's all a bit passe.
The better question is how best can we cooperate with our European neighbours, when it's in both our interests, to meet the challenges of the mid 21st Century?
My guess is it will be about much harder stuff, like crime, security, defence and immigration, than it is about idealistic constitutional projects like Federal Union.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
Do the Tories have the luxury of a few defeats ?
Labour had the storm anchor of the unions to save them from existential challenge back in the 80s. The Tory equivalent is big business - but there’s no institutional tie like the Labour/unions one. If the money defects to Reform, then what do they have left ?
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Because these things generally don't stick around as first order issues unless there's some exacerbating factor or it has huge unforeseen negative consequences? If they did, Ed Miliband would've become PM.
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
The problem Labour have is they are alienating various voting groups whilst failing to articulate how it all fits into an overall vision or strategy, because it doesn't.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
Voting groups that all vote Tory anyway. So nothing to be lost in shafting well off pensioners and fans of the Worzels.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
"Thatcherism on a European scale". After what she did for Britain I can see why it appeals.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
Wholeheartedly agree with this.
I would find it very hard to vote Tory because of Brexit (though this is somewhat moot as I would find it very hard to vote Tory anyway). But them supporting re-join would almost make it even worse. It's like the businesses that refuse to sell defunct assets as it would force them to realise the loss.
I would hope that by the 2030s we are having a debate about a constructive future global partnership with other countries that share our values that may or may not be the EU, rather than trying to reverse ferret on a decision that we can never undo (sadly).
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
Well he obviously meant that. Brexit is a historical event. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen.
Mmm, but there is more than one possible "does not support" take on that historical event, e.g:
* consider it a bad idea and want to reverse it to whatever extent possible * consider it in retrospect a mistake but that the best thing in the current circumstances is not to try to reverse it
On the "holding a grudge" front, I was never likely to vote Tory anyway, but I'm really not going to vote for the clowns who blew a decade on their pet political bogeyman when they could have been addressing the real problems the country was and still is facing -- even if they did have a sudden change of mind on the question.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Whilst I understand that point of view there's also a risk you relight anachronistic battles of the past.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
But so long as it remains the paramount and defining political project of our continent ...
Its joke pretending to be a continental bloc
It's hardly a "bloc". Just look at the tension and diversity.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
Centre Left parties - other than the Danish Social Democrats - prioritise immigration over and above electoral success.
Or they hope the immigrants vote centre left and rely on welfare or work in the public sector and don't become too well off and start voting for right of centre parties while also diluting the vote of the white working class whose cultural conservatism and patriotism most upper middle class globalist 'progressives' and social liberals have nothing but contempt for
Another take on the religious quandary. I’m on a train in Spain about to embark on yet another pilgrimage walk. About the seventh time I have done this. You meet people from all walks of life; many religions not just Christians; different cultures and nationalities; all with a desire to understand their spiritual self. It challenges you to listen and understand others and if there’s something there it will come out.
Perhaps Mr & Mrs @maxh could try it and see what changes. No matter what it’s a great way to meet people and discuss different views. Wines are good to.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
Cleverly was no better than Badenoch, IMHO. He was invisible and his platform absent.
Jenrick, had a been a good egg, would have been the obvious choice - but he isn't.
Rees Mogg backed Jenrick, if Kemi loses the next GE but he wins back a north Somerset seat next time he might fancy a punt at it.
If any Tory can squeeze back the Reform vote now (other than Boris of course) The Mogg can
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
So the Tories become electable again when they become even more EUphile than the LDs are now while somehow not losing most of their remaining Leave voters to Reform? It is a view
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
You are writing a very expensive manifesto a long way out from the GE. Restoring unlimited agricultural relief, restoring WFP, reversing VAT on private schools, cutting Employers NI. No doubt wanting to continue the Triple Lock and increasing military spending.
What are you planning to cut to fund that lot?
Well you could start by axing the above inflation payrise for GPs and train drivers but the LDs for starters now agree with the Tories on almost everything you have set out and Reform also agree with the Tories and LDs on most of those policies too
I am questioning you on the Tory policies that you are proposing.
It would be impossible to reverse the public sector payrises, unless you propose a major pay cut for all in the public sector.
Is that what your manifesto plans? Including armed forces, police etc?
Even so, that wouldn't fund the gap.
Certainly no rises for any public sector employee above inflation
Well, that's what Labour did. Where are you going to find the difference?
Tax rises? In which case what are they? Spending cuts? Where and how much? Or ramping up borrowing?
No one ever seems to suggest the state should do less
We are having to release prisoners early because there aren't enough places and schools are literally falling down. That really doesn't suggest the state is doing too much.
That is not the same as suggesting the state should do less
when people say that the state should do less then you need to ask what they wouldn't do. Health, Pensions, Other Social Security and Education cover around 50% of the total budget. add on Debt, Defence, Public order and transport and you're reaching 66%. cut much else and you're not saving much out of the total budget
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
he was wishy washy and did the absolute minimum, useless.
Perhaps even short of the absolute minimum.
Don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that's ridiculous. With even half-hearted American support Ukraine could have prevailed. But it suited America to have a stalemate, not least due to its impact on POO.
I don't think this is true at all.
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
I'm sure PB will enjoy Simon Jenkins getting upset about losing his driving licence and whining about it in his column. The comments below are withering:
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
I've often thought that Brexit was the historical root cause of the Tories' huge defeat in this year's GE. Not because Brexit was unpopular. But because, from 2016 to 2022, the government found Brexit so time- and energy-consuming that they didn't have the bandwidth to do anything else. Very little was achieved n respect of domestic priorities, and public services were left to deteriorate while everybody wibbled on about Brexit. Then came Boris, Covid, Truss and Sunak....
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
Well does it matter? Trump takes office in Jan and won't send anymore US missiles.
Zelensky will have to wait until Merz likely takes office in Feb as he has promised to send more German missiles to Ukraine if elected, then get the French and British to follow suit
The French* and British aren't making any missiles. Their capacity to send more is limited.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
As I said Merz winning in Germany in Feb is key to more missiles as he has promised to ramp up Taurus missile production for Ukraine.
Forget Trump, there is sod all chance of any further US military aid of any significance for Ukraine once he takes office again in Jan. Europe will be on its own against Putin and either funds Zelensky or he has to take a Trump imposed peace deal mainly on Putin's terms
I've often thought that Brexit was the historical root cause of the Tories' huge defeat in this year's GE. Not because Brexit was unpopular. But because, from 2016 to 2022, the government found Brexit so time- and energy-consuming that they didn't have the bandwidth to do anything else. Very little was achieved n respect of domestic priorities, and public services were left to deteriorate while everybody wibbled on about Brexit. Then came Boris, Covid, Truss and Sunak....
I'm sure PB will enjoy Simon Jenkins getting upset about losing his driving licence and whining about it in his column. The comments below are withering:
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Electoral Calculus' average poll projection now has the Tories up 84 MPs to 205, Labour down 127 to 285, the LDs down 4 to 68 and Reform up 33 to 38 and the SNP up 7 to 16. Giving a hung parliament https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Lab/LibDem coalition from the looks of it. If the LibDems are prepared to enter a coalition, of course. Could take a centre-left Government through to 2034.
Of course, things will almost certainly change.
Indeed, though as the LDs oppose the tractor tax, oppose the winter fuel allowance cut and are more NIMBY on building in greenbelt land in the home counties could be quite some demands Sir Ed gives Sir Keir for his support
What is the tractor tax?
Labour hammering family farms with assets over £1 million with IHT which the LDs oppose
Unlikely to have tractors worth that much. And would that be IHT at half the normal rate with 10 years to pay it by any chance?
It would be IHT destroying family farms which have an average value of around £2 million.
Regardless of the policy value anyway the Tories, Reform, the LDs and SNP all oppose it so Starmer if he loses his majority either has to scrap it and the winter fuel allowance cut all the opposition parties also oppose or they all no confidence a Labour minority government and throw him out of office
By 2029 this will be old hat, and the big landowners, who are most affected, will have worked out deals with their accountants and solicitors. The Winter Fuel Allowance will be long forgotten, as there will some directed form of support to the needy, not handouts for the likes of Big and myself.
No they won't, I live in a rural area and the loathing for this Labour government round here is unbelievable, rural areas will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with Labour and keeps the hated tractor tax.
Pensioners also will never forgive Labour either for their total betrayal, you even hear them at cafes whinging on Starmer's betrayal, they also will never forgive Labour or any party which does a deal with them and keeps the WFA cut.
Plus you have the employers and small businesses hammered by the NI for employers rise also furious with the government and Starmer and Reeves
The universal WFP will not be reinstated, and there will be a very different set of problems and issues that will need innovative ways to resolve by 2029
Mel Stride has already said the triple lock is unaffordable and that will not be in the manifesto as it is unaffordable
To be honest, you should join reform as that is where your heart is and where they live, back in the 1950s, whereas the country has moved on and frankly I expect reform to become quite unpopular if they take Musk's money and side with Trump and his crazy ideas
In which case the Starmer government will be thrown out of office once it loses its majority as the LDs will hold the balance of power on current polls and want the universal WFP reinstated let alone Reform.
The Tories are a million miles from a majority too so Stride can say what he wants he won't be able to implement it without LD or Reform backing either
The Scots have a wonderful expression for you
You are just 'havering'
Look it up
It is just reality, the Tories, LDs, Reform and SNP would all back a no confidence vote in a Labour minority government unless it reverses the tractor tax and WFA cut. So unless Labour retains its majority at the next GE both those policies are doomed
You assume far too much there. The SNP will never (again) put the Tories in over Labour. The Lib Dems are very unlikely to with the Tories in their current state. And we can't have endless general elections so if it is a Con-/Lab-led govt choice then they'd go with Labour.
You don't need to No Confidence a minority government to get your preferred policies when you can oppose vote-by-vote.
That said, the Winter Fuel issue will be very old news by 2028/9.
The LDs if Kingmakers could simply restore the WFA and reverse the IHT exemption removal for family farms via amendment to a Labour minority government's Budget and threaten to vote down the entire budget unless included
Except that its not going to be on their agenda by 2029.
The only reason its talked about today is its in the news today, come 2029 they'll have whatever priorities suit 2029 and not today's news.
Just like Labour screamed and screamed about the bedroom tax but once in office it wasn't their priority anymore.
At least half the LD seats are in rural areas and almost half LD voters are pensioners, it will be far more of an issue for them reversing the tractor tax and WFA cut than the bedroom tax will be for Labour now given the size of their majority. The LDs learnt their lesson from 2010-15 and will want more of a pound of flesh from any minority government before agreeing to support them.
Though Labour have managed to find huge payrises for their core voters such as train drivers and NHS GPs the Tories didn't even so. Reversing the bedroom tax was also never in Starmer's manifesto anyway
Interesting that Steve Baker said this evening that the Tories would never get anywhere until they start being serious and realise that such things as supporting the winter fuel payments for pensioners is unsustainable. I thought he was quite impressive.
Yes well if they lose all their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform the 2 remaining Tory MPs can be as serious as they like but nobody will be listening
Steve Baker is correct and you simply are stuck in reform
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Social Democratic parties could do very well now if they outflanked the Right on immigration. But, they are not willing to do that.
Labour have said they will reduce immigration compared to the preceding Tory government. So, they appear to be doing exactly what you say none are willing to do.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
There is a big difference between them being issues 'of significance' and things that are nice ticky box things that can be put into their manifestos. It is highly likely that these things will make it into the Tory, Lib Dem, Nationalist and Reform manifestos.
Reform, the Nats and quite possibly the Lib Dems, as parties that will run third party seat maximising campaigns. For the Tories its a trap they likely have to avoid given as the 'alternative' government - at least until Reform usurp them, they'll face tough questions about whether restoring these things are the best use of money and how are paying for it.
Not promise to restore the WFA and lose their pensioner core vote to the LDs and Reform and not promise to restore IHT exemption for family farms and lose their farmer core vote to Reform and the LDs then the Tories effectively go extinct.
Given the Tories have near zero chance of getting a majority government anyway next time they need to focus on maximising their vote not looking credible to a few fiscally conservative economists to ensure their majority government
Perhaps - though I think the WFA really will drop off the radar when people's pensions go up by more than it was worth anyway. They'll look quite foolish trying to say we need a smaller state while explaining why one area government should be expanding in is to offer cash to pensioners who are better off as a cohort than those in work and already benefiting from the triple lock every year.
But it rather captures their dilemma - namely that the strategy best designed to keep Reform and the Lib Dems in their box may also guarantee a continuation of a Labour government as the only party serious about the public finances.
Except voters don't want a party 'serious' about the public finances at the moment. They want low taxes for themselves, tax rises for the rich and more spending on them but spending cuts for immigrants.
Hence Trump, hence Melenchon, hence Le Pen, hence the AfD, hence Vox and Sumar, hence here now too Reform and the populism of the LDs too. They are the leaders and parties surging in western nations at the moment not the established main parties
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
Do the Tories have the luxury of a few defeats ?
Labour had the storm anchor of the unions to save them from existential challenge back in the 80s. The Tory equivalent is big business - but there’s no institutional tie like the Labour/unions one. If the money defects to Reform, then what do they have left ?
no political party has the divine right to exist let along be a functioning form of government/opposition. They do have something at the moment that reform doesn't, a party structure that has lots of member branches all over the country. this gives them the boots on the ground.
the problem that the conservatives have at the moment is their ageing membership. if they can't attract younger members they'll stop being able to put up candidates for local councillor which will then impact the ability to have credible candidates at a GE.
Having said that though, I'll take Reform seriously at the next general election if they make serious inroads into local government in which to build a proper base. until then anything about the Tories disappearing is just a scare story.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
She isn't. We suspected this but thought there was a small chance she might surprise on the upside, but secretly we all know there isn't. I doubt she'll last to the GE.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
To be fair, none of the candidates which could be considered credible were ever going to win in the membership. Like Labour it will take a few defeats to find someone who can do better.
The Tories don't have the luxury of a few election defeats to find a better leader. Labour are doing badly enough that there's a chance the voters will want a new government sooner than that.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Depends what "credible" means. If it means "will do fundamentally what governments have been doing since 2001" then what's the point?
I think it's about the personal qualities of leadership.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.
Anybody who seriously thinks that the WFA cut, the IHT on farms issue, and the VAT on private school fees policy will be issues of significance in the 2028/29 GE must be bonkers, as must anybody who thinks that keying current polling figures into Electoral Calculus gives us a clue as to the outcome of that election. Sorry HYUFD, but therefore it follows logically that you must be bonkers.
I'd almost argue the opposite, why wouldn't they be?
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
Certainly so. I won't vote for a party that supports Brexit.
What is this "supports Brexit"? It's a part of history.
Just agreeing with CR. Voters have long memories and bear grudges.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Oh, so you mean you won't support a party that doesn't want to re-join the EU? That's really something quite different (as indeed was supporting Brexit pre-June 2016 and after it).
Well he obviously meant that. Brexit is a historical event. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen.
Mmm, but there is more than one possible "does not support" take on that historical event, e.g:
* consider it a bad idea and want to reverse it to whatever extent possible * consider it in retrospect a mistake but that the best thing in the current circumstances is not to try to reverse it
On the "holding a grudge" front, I was never likely to vote Tory anyway, but I'm really not going to vote for the clowns who blew a decade on their pet political bogeyman when they could have been addressing the real problems the country was and still is facing -- even if they did have a sudden change of mind on the question.
Yes, opposing has 2 strands, let's reverse it vs let's make the best of it. I'm not sure which I'm in. I think the biggest cost was the distraction. All that political energy dissipated on something producing benefits only in the heads of a fringe sect of reactionary right wingers.
The New York Times is reporting that Ukraine is nearly out of the ATACMs missiles supplied by the US, and Britain doesn't have many Storm Shadow missiles left.
The failure of Western countries to produce key armaments to supply to Ukraine is stark.
The failure of Biden to call Putin's bluff in 2022 instead of closing the embassy and telling the world that Ukraine would fall in three days continues to have dreadful consequences.
That's not washing. Biden supported Ukraine whilst being mindful of the escalation risk. You can quibble on the margins, eg too risk averse?, but in no way will a Russian victory, if it happens, be on his head.
Biden appears to be equally scared of a Russian victory and a Russian defeat. Since he was unable to choose between what he saw as equally unpalatable options, then other actors would make that choice, and so he would bear some responsibility for not choosing to support a Ukrainian victory.
Comments
Not much left for home waters defence though.
Where does this idea that people "forget" policies or measures that targeted them once a parliament approaches its conclusion come from?
Some might give up, accept it, or move onto other issues, but that's very far from a given.
I expect there was an inversion and you'd have been able to get above it somewhere west of Sheffield.
Same again tomorrow.
Trump is potentially persuadable. The Ukrainians are making a valiant effort to work on his avarice and ego to persuade him to supply more weapons to Ukraine - but even if they are successful there won't be any ATACMs missiles to send because nothing has been done to make any more of them.
Of course it matters. Superiority in ranged weaponry wins wars.
* NigelB says the French are working on making more, so that's better then nowt, but it's a far cry from the tidal wave of Western weapons you'd hope we would be producing to support a Ukrainian victory nearly three years into the war.
What happens if Western countries have to fight a proper war? We'd run out of ammunition in weeks. The complacency is off the scale.
Has anyone else experienced this? Did some people have a really bad Christmas, or are they back at work and in a bad mood?
It's a great insight.
And goes some way to explaining why some of the least self-aware people are those who become the Religious Zealots and the Hardline Atheists.
a true atheist actively disbelieves in god while an agnostic doesn't know if god exists but may actively disbelieve in the organised religions.
The reason we plumped for her was the ethics and the character of the alternative, Robert Jenrick, even though there's little doubt in my mind he'd be more energetic.
Generally speaking incumbent parties are struggling. A tough approach on immigration doesn't change that calculus.
https://archive.ph/orMq5
The WFA and VAT on school fees in particular seem highly unlikely to blow up beyond the initial burst of anger given one those losing it will basically get back in April and was becoming more irrelevant each year, while the other made something that had already become completely unaffordable to the vast majority slightly more so.
The IHT changes could backfire if farming and landholders' lobbyists are right and the treasury wrong, and more apocalyptic scenarios come to pass - but even then negatives are likely to play out over decades.
Plus the changes mainly fall on those least likely to vote Labour. Looked at cynically, just as the Tories did in 2010-15, if you're cutting/taxing things that are going to piss people off, it might as well be those who already don't like you.
If the Tories aren't able to provide an alternative, will the voters turn elsewhere?
Perhaps Mr & Mrs @maxh could try it and see what changes. No matter what it’s a great way to meet people and discuss different views. Wines are good to.
We have a defence policy?
The closest to this stage of a parliament we have is 1992-97 where the exit from the ERM early on caused a lot of problems but ultimately was only a minor thing by the 97 election. It was the constant scandals and the fact that the Tories had been in power for 18 years that good communicator Blair could exploit to crush them.
I won't vote for a party that still supports the most collosal mistake of British foreign policy since Suez.
The Tories will become electable again when they support their policy of the half century to 2016 and want to join the EU. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
It risks looking vindictive, which will be noticed and impress itself upon a far wider group of voters, and means they will get little credit even if things do improve.
They are like a guy fancying a girl and assuming if they use the same pickup lines over and over which she keeps refusing that sooner or later she will give in and say yes
There's a real risk that Labour become hated but win a second term on points.
Jenrick, had a been a good egg, would have been the obvious choice - but he isn't.
The EU of the 2030s won't be the same one we left in the 2010s.
The fog looks set to last another 24 hours, but if you have any high land close to you it's well worth getting above it. Looking down on cloud is a delicious experience.
On 28 December 1962, ITN’s Tom St John Barry spoke to acclaimed historian AJP Taylor about newly published foreign office documents which were alleged to reveal King Edward VIII's efforts to seek a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Some five years after the publication of the infamous Marburg Files, Taylor gave his view on the significance and reliability of the new evidence of the Duke of Windsor's alleged Nazi sympathies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs35gKEeEKc
ITN has just published this six minute video.
In the 90s Major just about got his party to pass the Maastricht treated, which spawned the EU.
And their policy in the 2010s was to have a referendum and implement the results, which they did, backed by the biggest democractic vote in this country's history, and endorsed by three general elections.
So there's no continuity in European policy for them to go back to, nor could there have been, as the EU has mutated and metastacised so much over that time.
The better question is how best can we cooperate with our European neighbours, when it's in both our interests, to meet the challenges of the mid 21st Century?
My guess is it will be about much harder stuff, like crime, security, defence and immigration, than it is about idealistic constitutional projects like Federal Union.
Labour had the storm anchor of the unions to save them from existential challenge back in the 80s.
The Tory equivalent is big business - but there’s no institutional tie like the Labour/unions one. If the money defects to Reform, then what do they have left ?
I would find it very hard to vote Tory because of Brexit (though this is somewhat moot as I would find it very hard to vote Tory anyway). But them supporting re-join would almost make it even worse. It's like the businesses that refuse to sell defunct assets as it would force them to realise the loss.
I would hope that by the 2030s we are having a debate about a constructive future global partnership with other countries that share our values that may or may not be the EU, rather than trying to reverse ferret on a decision that we can never undo (sadly).
* consider it a bad idea and want to reverse it to whatever extent possible
* consider it in retrospect a mistake but that the best thing in the current circumstances is not to try to reverse it
On the "holding a grudge" front, I was never likely to vote Tory anyway, but I'm really not going to vote for the clowns who blew a decade on their pet political bogeyman when they could have been addressing the real problems the country was and still is facing -- even if they did have a sudden change of mind on the question.
https://archive.ph/ryMuH#selection-3043.160-3047.39
If any Tory can squeeze back the Reform vote now (other than Boris of course) The Mogg can
I think Biden would much rather that Ukraine had prevailed, because it would have led to the downfall of Putin, which would hugely of been in his interests.
It's more accurate to say - as @williamglenn does - that Biden was excessively concerned about the risks of escalation, and overestimated Russia's strength. And that was a mistake.
A mistake, for what it's worth, that many others made too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/27/potholes-shoplifters-britain-public-services-local-council-whitehall#comments
"At no point in this ludicrous boomer tantrum do you take any responsibility for your own actions."
Forget Trump, there is sod all chance of any further US military aid of any significance for Ukraine once he takes office again in Jan. Europe will be on its own against Putin and either funds Zelensky or he has to take a Trump imposed peace deal mainly on Putin's terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrpA2uEWEgI
Hence Trump, hence Melenchon, hence Le Pen, hence the AfD, hence Vox and Sumar, hence here now too Reform and the populism of the LDs too. They are the leaders and parties surging in western nations at the moment not the established main parties
the problem that the conservatives have at the moment is their ageing membership. if they can't attract younger members they'll stop being able to put up candidates for local councillor which will then impact the ability to have credible candidates at a GE.
Having said that though, I'll take Reform seriously at the next general election if they make serious inroads into local government in which to build a proper base. until then anything about the Tories disappearing is just a scare story.
Consider Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. I don't think the electorate thought that his policies in 2019 were less credible than in 2017. I think that he, personally, was seen as a less credible person to implement them.